So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
I would have opted for a more robust military response. In my view allied forces should have also targeted the delivery systems - the Syrian Air force and command and control facilities.
Further I would formally state that the Syrian regime constitutes a rogue state and those in the chain of command of Syrian chemical weapons, through to Assad, are legitimate military targets unless they agree to surrender to an appropriate war crimes court.
So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.
He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.
Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.
Sometimres there are no good alternatives, but this is not our war. At least it wasn't until today.
There are no easy answers but a message has rightly been sent to Assad and any future despots planning to use chemical weapons - there will be consequences.
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
What would you do? Ignore it?
Yup. As lamentable as that seems, the alternative (our current actions) has achieved precisely nothing.
And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
So do you think the weapons treaties we have should be ripped up? Because that's the logical conclusion of your position. And if so, do you think that makes the world safer in the long term?
It's also interesting that you assume it will happen again - something that is essentially guaranteed with your do-nothing position.
But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances and thee evidence. But I repeat my position: if we are to have treaties banning weapons, then those treaties need to be upheld. Otherwise they're pointless.
F1: the Raikkonen bet came off. Mildly surprised it was Vettel rather than a team mate that pipped him to top third practice, but it's nice to have a green bet.
Mercedes must be getting worried. China has been a happy hunting ground for them in recent years and today Ferrari was over the hills and far away.
On-topic: just watched the May video. Agree with her sentiments.
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
I would have opted for a more robust military response. In my view allied forces should have also targeted the delivery systems - the Syrian Air force and command and control facilities.
Further I would formally state that the Syrian regime constitutes a rogue state and those in the chain of command of Syrian chemical weapons, through to Assad, are legitimate military targets unless they agree to surrender to an appropriate war crimes court.
That would mean US and UK airstrikes targeting Russian equipment, troops and bases. Does anyone have the stomach for a proxy war in Syria between Russia and the west?
I don't see how those other acts would make the slightest difference.
From rumours I heard a couple of years back from a good source, there may be a certain amount of 'testing' going on with some of these missiles. Given test shots cost a fortune, it makes for a good opportunity to try some 'new' things.
As an aside, many moons ago I met two RAF staff who worked in Gulf War 1. This was years later, but they told me that they had been using so many weapons that they were running out of modern fuses, and had to resort to using very old stocks. The only problem was that no-one knew for sure how to use them. A trip to the Imperial war museum produced documentation and brass plaques containing the details.
I'd love to know how much truth there was in that story. It certainly seems plausible.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
That vote five years ago was about a different situation. For one thing, the use of chemical weapons by a foreign power against our own country is an important factor, as are the facts this is a different government, and every major party has different leaders.
Parliament has not been overruled, and it's stupid of you to say it has.
But what answer do you have? Are you in the Tyndall camp and wish to see the treaties ripped up, or do you want them upheld? And if so, how, when they are so flagrantly broken?
That 2013 vote walkabout bombing Assad for using chemical weapons. Parliament voted against, and now May has done it anyway.It is a significant constitutional event. This was not an emergency meeting executive action.
I do not support virtue signalling via missiles. May said it was not about regime change, but where have we heard such words before?
We are now bombing both sides of the same war. Our NATO ally Turkey is bombing a third side.
I do not doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, indeed one of my work colleagues had relatives affected by the 2013 chemical attacks.
Here we go again on another Middle East adventure, without clear purpose.
Why is it a significant constitutional event? HMG is not bound by Parliament on such matters, even if it has had votes on it in the past.
How long is Parliament bound by an advisory referendum?
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
What would you do? Ignore it?
Yup. As lamentable as that seems, the alternative (our current actions) has achieved precisely nothing.
And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
So do you think the weapons treaties we have should be ripped up? Because that's the logical conclusion of your position. And if so, do you think that makes the world safer in the long term?
It's also interesting that you assume it will happen again - something that is essentially guaranteed with your do-nothing position.
But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances and thee evidence. But I repeat my position: if we are to have treaties banning weapons, then those treaties need to be upheld. Otherwise they're pointless.
Yes, it's clear that we don't have the resolve to enforce it. As I said previously, you and I both know that the only way this stops is with regime change and a vast occupation army. That is blood and treasure we are not willing to spend in the Middle East.
I don't think it makes a difference on how safe the world is. The treaty is being ignored today.
Is this just virtue bombing? What has it achieved? Has it punished Assad? Did we kill anyone? Any collaterol damage? What did we hit? What will Russia do? What has it cost us? There are so many questions that we can't really answer only a few hours after the event.
F1: the Raikkonen bet came off. Mildly surprised it was Vettel rather than a team mate that pipped him to top third practice, but it's nice to have a green bet.
Mercedes must be getting worried. China has been a happy hunting ground for them in recent years and today Ferrari was over the hills and far away.
On-topic: just watched the May video. Agree with her sentiments.
Good bet that, well spotted. Mercedes struggled with the purple ultrasoft tyres in the cold weather, but they look at least as quick as the Ferraris on the soft and medium tyres they’ll all be using tomorrow.
Goes away to check odds on Bottas to win the race.
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
I would have opted for a more robust military response. In my view allied forces should have also targeted the delivery systems - the Syrian Air force and command and control facilities.
Further I would formally state that the Syrian regime constitutes a rogue state and those in the chain of command of Syrian chemical weapons, through to Assad, are legitimate military targets unless they agree to surrender to an appropriate war crimes court.
The Syrians have moved their equipment to Russian and Iranian bases....
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
What would you do? Ignore it?
Yup. As lamentable as that seems, the alternative (our current actions) has achieved precisely nothing.
And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
So do you think the weapons treaties we have should be ripped up? Because that's the logical conclusion of your position. And if so, do you think that makes the world safer in the long term?
It's also interesting that you assume it will happen again - something that is essentially guaranteed with your do-nothing position.
But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances and thee evidence. But I repeat my position: if we are to have treaties banning weapons, then those treaties need to be upheld. Otherwise they're pointless.
Yes, it's clear that we don't have the resolve to enforce it. As I said previously, you and I both know that the only way this stops is with regime change and a vast occupation army. That is blood and treasure we are not willing to spend in the Middle East.
Regime change would be unwise, not least because it would widen the war to including fighting Iran and Russia.
For all his tyranny and evils, Assad runs a more tolerant and secular country than the Islamists of Al Quaida or ISIS. Assad is no threat to us, unlike his opponents.
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
What would you do? Ignore it?
Yup. As lamentable as that seems, the alternative (our current actions) has achieved precisely nothing.
And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
So do you think the weapons treaties we have should be ripped up? Because that's the logical conclusion of your position. And if so, do you think that makes the world safer in the long term?
It's also interesting that you assume it will happen again - something that is essentially guaranteed with your do-nothing position.
But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances and thee evidence. But I repeat my position: if we are to have treaties banning weapons, then those treaties need to be upheld. Otherwise they're pointless.
Yes, it's clear that we don't have the resolve to enforce it. As I said previously, you and I both know that the only way this stops is with regime change and a vast occupation army. That is blood and treasure we are not willing to spend in the Middle East.
Regime change would be unwise, not least because it would widen the war to including fighting Iran and Russia.
For all his tyranny and evils, Assad runs a more tolerant and secular country than the Islamists of Al Quaida or ISIS. Assad is no threat to us, unlike his opponents.
I agree with you, but I meant specifically stopping the use of chemical weapons. We'd need to get people on the ground to go in and destroy them. The only way to do that is regime change and an occupation army.
Syria is such a mess that the only wise course of action, IMO, was for the west to stay out.
Mr. Jessop, it's an illegal immigrant. Some Greek bugger by the name of Helios. Don't worry, once we throw him out it'll be months before he tries entering Britain again.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers, though I think he was just mispriced. Interesting thought on Bottas (did hear somewhere that some reckon the evens side of the track might be the better for the grid).
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.
Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.
In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
Sorry but that's bollocks - if May could consult her cabinet on Thursday then there's no reason not to have recalled Parliament to meet on either Thursday or Friday.
Why insult me - just say you disagree which is fair enough
Didn't insult you, I insulted the idea that this was such an emergency that getting the consent of Parliament was impossible. The chemical weapons attack on Douma happened a week ago. When almost the same thing happened in 2013, the chemical weapons use was on the Monday, Parliament was recalled on Tuesday to meet on the Thursday. There is absolutely no reason why May could not have done the same thing.
So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.
He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.
Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.
Sometimres there are no good alternatives, but this is not our war. At least it wasn't until today.
There are no easy answers but a message has rightly been sent to Assad and any future despots planning to use chemical weapons - there will be consequences.
Those consequences being a choreographed Potemkin air strike affecting f.a. Bet Bashar's quaking in his boots.
'A message has been sent' can be added to the pile of political bs which Includes 'let me be clear' and 'lessons will be learnt'.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
I am sceptical about our involvement in this, but Theresa May is a serious, deliberative politician, and I trust her to have made the right decision in consultation with our allies.
I am very happy that she has ignored the non-convention that Parliament should be consulted. It is for the executive to take decisions about war and peace. If Parliament disagrees, they can no-confidence the PM.
Interesting, the ConHome survey (ducks and covers) shows party members backing the PM’s right to act in this way by 3 to 1. They haven’t published the results on whether we should be involved, which suggests to me they are less favourable.
So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.
He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.
Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.
Sometimres there are no good alternatives, but this is not our war. At least it wasn't until today.
There are no easy answers but a message has rightly been sent to Assad and any future despots planning to use chemical weapons - there will be consequences.
Really? The bombing of a few probably empty buildings? You really think this does anything except highlight how utterly impotent the West is? This was nothing more than armed virtue signalling.
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
What would you do? Ignore it?
Yup. As lamentable as that seems, the alternative (our current actions) has achieved precisely nothing.
And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
So do you think the weapons treaties we have should be ripped up? Because that's the logical conclusion of your position. And if so, do you think that makes the world safer in the long term?
It's also interesting that you assume it will happen again - something that is essentially guaranteed with your do-nothing position.
But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances and thee evidence. But I repeat my position: if we are to have treaties banning weapons, then those treaties need to be upheld. Otherwise they're pointless.
Yes, it's clear that we don't have the resolve to enforce it. As I said previously, you and I both know that the only way this stops is with regime change and a vast occupation army. That is blood and treasure we are not willing to spend in the Middle East.
I don't think it makes a difference on how safe the world is. The treaty is being ignored today.
It was ignored by Saddam in the 1980s (to our shame). Then it was ignored by Assad in 2013. We failed to act then. Now, we have Russia having used chemical weapons extra-territorially and Assad continuing to use them.
But there have been countless conflicts over the last ninety years where such weapons might have been of use to one or all sides, and they were not used. That is where the successive treaties have proved vital.
There has been enough ignoring of the breaches. It is time to show regimes that might now be considering developing - or worse using - these weapons that there will be an international response. That you will be pariahs.
Your 'response' will guarantee further chemical attacks in other conflicts, or even against us - again.
It's not too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.
Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.
In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
Sorry but that's bollocks - if May could consult her cabinet on Thursday then there's no reason not to have recalled Parliament to meet on either Thursday or Friday.
Why insult me - just say you disagree which is fair enough
Didn't insult you, I insulted the idea that this was such an emergency that getting the consent of Parliament was impossible. The chemical weapons attack on Douma happened a week ago. When almost the same thing happened in 2013, the chemical weapons use was on the Monday, Parliament was recalled on Tuesday to meet on the Thursday. There is absolutely no reason why May could not have done the same thing.
Suggesting I am talking bollocks is unnecessary
I am content with TM action on this and Parliament will have it's say on Monday
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
I agree about the severe error of judgment.
Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.
I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
I have quite a lot of respect for Theresa May but her unwillingness to argue her case on anything is one of her biggest flaws.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
I agree about the severe error of judgment.
Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.
I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
I have quite a lot of respect for Theresa May but her unwillingness to argue her case on anything is one of her biggest flaws.
She will now have to argue her case in Parliament on Monday
However, the attack has received widespread support from NATO, the EU, Canada, Australia, Turkey and others
Mr. Jessop, it's an illegal immigrant. Some Greek bugger by the name of Helios. Don't worry, once we throw him out it'll be months before he tries entering Britain again.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers, though I think he was just mispriced. Interesting thought on Bottas (did hear somewhere that some reckon the evens side of the track might be the better for the grid).
Vettel said in the interview on the grid after qualifying, that there’s “more rubber on Kimi’s side” as they looked down the road to the first corner.
Betfair back prices (in grid order): SV 1.72 KR 7.4 VB 11 LH 4.5 MV 20 DR 23
So we've lobbed in our portion of cruise missiles. Sigh.
So what do we do next time there's a chemical attack?
What would you do? Ignore it?
Yup. As lamentable as that seems, the alternative (our current actions) has achieved precisely nothing.
And you didn't answer the origin question, what happens next time? A few more missiles? These and the last lot didn't work.
So do you think the weapons treaties we have should be ripped up? Because that's the logical conclusion of your position. And if so, do you think that makes the world safer in the long term?
It's also interesting that you assume it will happen again - something that is essentially guaranteed with your do-nothing position.
But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances and thee evidence. But I repeat my position: if we are to have treaties banning weapons, then those treaties need to be upheld. Otherwise they're pointless.
Yes, it's clear that we don't have the resolve to enforce it. As I said previously, you and I both know that the only way this stops is with regime change and a vast occupation army. That is blood and treasure we are not willing to spend in the Middle East.
I don't think it makes a difference on how safe the world is. The treaty is being ignored today.
It was ignored by Saddam in the 1980s (to our shame). Then it was ignored by Assad in 2013. We failed to act then. Now, we have Russia having used chemical weapons extra-territorially and Assad continuing to use them.
But there have been countless conflicts over the last ninety years where such weapons might have been of use to one or all sides, and they were not used. That is where the successive treaties have proved vital.
There has been enough ignoring of the breaches. It is time to show regimes that might now be considering developing - or worse using - these weapons that there will be an international response. That you will be pariahs.
Your 'response' will guarantee further chemical attacks in other conflicts, or even against us - again.
It's not too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Okay, so are you ready to send in 20,000 British troops to help 180,000 American ones? Are you ready for 10 years (at least) of wading through shit? Are you ready to spend an unlimited amount of British taxpayer money?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then this is a nonsense argument we're having.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
It was ignored by Saddam in the 1980s (to our shame). Then it was ignored by Assad in 2013. We failed to act then. Now, we have Russia having used chemical weapons extra-territorially and Assad continuing to use them.
But there have been countless conflicts over the last ninety years where such weapons might have been of use to one or all sides, and they were not used. That is where the successive treaties have proved vital.
There has been enough ignoring of the breaches. It is time to show regimes that might now be considering developing - or worse using - these weapons that there will be an international response. That you will be pariahs.
Your 'response' will guarantee further chemical attacks in other conflicts, or even against us - again.
It's not too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
It wasn't just ignored by Saddam. The West played an active military role in facilitating his use of Chemical Weapons, providing tactical battlefield data to allow him to target Iranian military formations. Numerous Western countries turned a blind eye to their own companies exporting the materials to make the weapons to him.
The idea that we have any moral highground in this what so ever is frankly laughable. We only oppose the use of chemical weapons when it is by those we oppose. When it is by our allies or our proxies we are more than happy to ignore it or even facilitate it.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
I agree about the severe error of judgment.
Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.
I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
I have quite a lot of respect for Theresa May but her unwillingness to argue her case on anything is one of her biggest flaws.
About to do so 'live' from no 10 in next few minutes
Okay, so are you ready to send in 20,000 British troops to help 180,000 American ones? Are you ready for at least) 10 years if wading through shit? Are you ready to spend an unlimited amount of British taxpayer money?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then this is a nonsense argument we're having.
No it isn't, a s there's a massive assumption in your post that is, IMO, bogus.
You can guarantee there will be things going on that we won't be hearing about: the strikes are just the 'public' face of action - there will be black ops and diplomatic actions as well.
You are on the Tyndallite faction: that these treaties are not worth upholding. IMV that's dangerous and harmful to the world. In short, it's crazy.
Trump is getting a few air strikes of his own from within GOP this morning and his wee-wee problem has not gone away over the pee tapes.The action clearly suited Trump as a distraction but his problems at home have just got a lot worse,not better,as a result.His response is likely to be to full on WW3 as the ultimate destruction.He needs taking out.
On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.
However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.
Hadn't the OPCW verified that Syria had destroyed all of its chemical weapons? Giving them a chance to work out what has been going on doesn't really seem all that worthwhile as Syria will just hide stockpiles from them.
That was the UN Security Council resolution that Russia vetoed (2018/321) which the US, UK and France drafted.
It's not questioned that the UK Constitution gives the executive wide-ranging powers. But conventions are also important, this wasn't a national emergency, there was plenty of time to recall Parliament. It isn't right to avoid a convention just because May happens to run a minority government. I can't imagine the PBTories would support a Corbyn administration ruling by decree?
Can you identify the convention you are talking about which has been "avoided," with an example or two, from before the year 2000, of instances where it has been followed?
An example, The Falklands were invaded on 2nd April 1982, Parliament wasn't recalled as it was sitting, but did have a rare Saturday sitting the following day when it was clear that Parliament approved of the use of force if diplomatic efforts did not succeed. When it became apparent that Argentina would ignore Security Council Resolution 502, Parliament was then recalled for 14th April when again, Parliament supported the use of force. I'll accept there was no vote, but had there been one, it would have been carried overwhelmingly. If Thatcher could be willing to let Parliament have a say, the cowardice of May to stay in her bunker is telling.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
It wasn't just ignored by Saddam. The West played an active military role in facilitating his use of Chemical Weapons, providing tactical battlefield data to allow him to target Iranian military formations. Numerous Western countries turned a blind eye to their own companies exporting the materials to make the weapons to him.
The idea that we have any moral highground in this what so ever is frankly laughable. We only oppose the use of chemical weapons when it is by those we oppose. When it is by our allies or our proxies we are more than happy to ignore it or even facilitate it.
My reading on this (admittedly in the past) gives a slightly different story for what happened back then. But even if you are right, that does not bar us from doing the right thing now - as someone said the other day: the fact we were complicit in slavery does not mean we cannot act to stop slavery now.
Okay, so are you ready to send in 20,000 British troops to help 180,000 American ones? Are you ready for at least) 10 years if wading through shit? Are you ready to spend an unlimited amount of British taxpayer money?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then this is a nonsense argument we're having.
No it isn't, a s there's a massive assumption in your post that is, IMO, bogus.
You can guarantee there will be things going on that we won't be hearing about: the strikes are just the 'public' face of action - there will be black ops and diplomatic actions as well.
You are on the Tyndallite faction: that these treaties are not worth upholding. IMV that's dangerous and harmful to the world. In short, it's crazy.
Wrong. They are worth upholding but only if you are willing to pay the price which clearly you are not. You think chucking a few bombs at a few buildings makes a difference when it does nothing at all except show we are not able to take any real effective action.
If you really cared about punishing the use of chemical weapons then you would be advocating a full scale western intervention in Syria with regime change. But of course you won't do that because the price is too high.
Okay, so are you ready to send in 20,000 British troops to help 180,000 American ones? Are you ready for at least) 10 years if wading through shit? Are you ready to spend an unlimited amount of British taxpayer money?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then this is a nonsense argument we're having.
No it isn't, a s there's a massive assumption in your post that is, IMO, bogus.
You can guarantee there will be things going on that we won't be hearing about: the strikes are just the 'public' face of action - there will be black ops and diplomatic actions as well.
You are on the Tyndallite faction: that these treaties are not worth upholding. IMV that's dangerous and harmful to the world. In short, it's crazy.
"Black ops and diplomatic action" sounds like a bunch of nothing.
I'm on the "let's deal with the world we live in, not the world we want to live in" side.
Do you honestly believe that today's actions (seen or unseen) have made an iota of difference to Syria's capability of delivering chemical weapons attacks?
I'm genuinely interested to know, because if the answer is yes then you have more than just one screw loose.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
I agree about the severe error of judgment.
Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.
I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
I have quite a lot of respect for Theresa May but her unwillingness to argue her case on anything is one of her biggest flaws.
About to do so 'live' from no 10 in next few minutes
Are you seriously suggesting that a press conference is the same as taking your case to the House of Commons?
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
A missile strike for a few hours is not a war, there is nothing further for Corbyn to campaign against and the news cycle will have moved on in a few days
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
I agree about the severe error of judgment.
Since the government has not made any meaningful attempt to set out its aims or how military means will achieve those to either Parliament or the public, I do not support these airstrikes.
I am still capable of being persuaded but that requires someone to try to persuade me. Gesture bombing, as Stewart McDonald describes it, is not something I would support.
Would it help if Theresa offered a second referendum
I have quite a lot of respect for Theresa May but her unwillingness to argue her case on anything is one of her biggest flaws.
About to do so 'live' from no 10 in next few minutes
Are you seriously suggesting that a press conference is the same as taking your case to the House of Commons?
That will happen on Monday - if she cannot convince her case she risks a no confidence vote
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
He campaigns against all wars, and is keen to see our troops as the bad guys and dictators as the goodies.
That is the worrying point for those who want JC to be PM.
It will be interesting to see his private and public reactions to a possible Hezbollah and Iranian attack on Israel ...
It wasn't just ignored by Saddam. The West played an active military role in facilitating his use of Chemical Weapons, providing tactical battlefield data to allow him to target Iranian military formations. Numerous Western countries turned a blind eye to their own companies exporting the materials to make the weapons to him.
The idea that we have any moral highground in this what so ever is frankly laughable. We only oppose the use of chemical weapons when it is by those we oppose. When it is by our allies or our proxies we are more than happy to ignore it or even facilitate it.
My reading on this (admittedly in the past) gives a slightly different story for what happened back then. But even if you are right, that does not bar us from doing the right thing now - as someone said the other day: the fact we were complicit in slavery does not mean we cannot act to stop slavery now.
It was and is a stupid analogy. When we were involved in the slave trade we were breaking no laws or international treaties. There was no moral highground to cling to. We were just doing business and then we changed our minds.
When we actively supported the use of chemical weapons by Iraq we were supporting the breaking of treaties. The very treaties you now cling to as being so important. I am afraid any moral highground we once had on this subject disappeared in the mid 80s.
On balance I'm okay with the airstrikes if it will degrade Assad's ability to produce chemical weapons. The Assad government and Russia have blocked the chance for OPCW to work out what's going on so we have to go on the basis that it was the Syrian government that ordered the use of chemical weapons contravening international law.
However it is a dangerous path to not get Parliament's approval, especially if the argument is that May thought she might lose the vote. There was plenty of time to recall Parliament and make her case to the House.
Hadn't the OPCW verified that Syria had destroyed all of its chemical weapons? Giving them a chance to work out what has been going on doesn't really seem all that worthwhile as Syria will just hide stockpiles from them.
That was the UN Security Council resolution that Russia vetoed (2018/321) which the US, UK and France drafted.
It's not questioned that the UK Constitution gives the executive wide-ranging powers. But conventions are also important, this wasn't a national emergency, there was plenty of time to recall Parliament. It isn't right to avoid a convention just because May happens to run a minority government. I can't imagine the PBTories would support a Corbyn administration ruling by decree?
Can you identify the convention you are talking about which has been "avoided," with an example or two, from before the year 2000, of instances where it has been followed?
An example, The Falklands were invaded on 2nd April 1982, Parliament wasn't recalled as it was sitting, but did have a rare Saturday sitting the following day when it was clear that Parliament approved of the use of force if diplomatic efforts did not succeed. When it became apparent that Argentina would ignore Security Council Resolution 502, Parliament was then recalled for 14th April when again, Parliament supported the use of force. I'll accept there was no vote, but had there been one, it would have been carried overwhelmingly. If Thatcher could be willing to let Parliament have a say, the cowardice of May to stay in her bunker is telling.
The Falklands was a full scale invasion by UK groundtroops alone, no comparison at all to lobbing a few missiles for a couple of hours led by the US as was the case last night
Okay, so are you ready to send in 20,000 British troops to help 180,000 American ones? Are you ready for at least) 10 years if wading through shit? Are you ready to spend an unlimited amount of British taxpayer money?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then this is a nonsense argument we're having.
No it isn't, a s there's a massive assumption in your post that is, IMO, bogus.
You can guarantee there will be things going on that we won't be hearing about: the strikes are just the 'public' face of action - there will be black ops and diplomatic actions as well.
You are on the Tyndallite faction: that these treaties are not worth upholding. IMV that's dangerous and harmful to the world. In short, it's crazy.
Wrong. They are worth upholding but only if you are willing to pay the price which clearly you are not. You think chucking a few bombs at a few buildings makes a difference when it does nothing at all except show we are not able to take any real effective action.
If you really cared about punishing the use of chemical weapons then you would be advocating a full scale western intervention in Syria with regime change. But of course you won't do that because the price is too high.
And indeed, that's what we did in Gulf War I. The US and UK sent a massive military force to invade and destroy Saddam's chemical weapons stocks when he decided to use them against an ally.
To think that such an aim can be achieved by chucking a few missiles in, some unseen black ops or diplomatic pressure is at best naïve or at worst delusional.
It’s diesel not Brexit. Jaguar are apparently very reliant on diesel and we all know diesel sales are in free fall. I’m sure Mrs Merkel is whiter than white when it comes to protecting a German auto industry very reliant on diesels too (you know the auto industry caught fiddling the tests which have put the skids under the self same diesels).
Okay, so are you ready to send in 20,000 British troops to help 180,000 American ones? Are you ready for at least) 10 years if wading through shit? Are you ready to spend an unlimited amount of British taxpayer money?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then this is a nonsense argument we're having.
No it isn't, a s there's a massive assumption in your post that is, IMO, bogus.
You can guarantee there will be things going on that we won't be hearing about: the strikes are just the 'public' face of action - there will be black ops and diplomatic actions as well.
You are on the Tyndallite faction: that these treaties are not worth upholding. IMV that's dangerous and harmful to the world. In short, it's crazy.
"Black ops and diplomatic action" sounds like a bunch of nothing.
I'm on the "let's deal with the world we live in, not the world we want to live in" side.
Do you honestly believe that today's actions (seen or unseen) have made an iota of difference to Syria's capability of delivering chemical weapons attacks?
I'm genuinely interested to know, because if the answer is yes then you have more than just one screw loose.
"Black ops and diplomatic action" sounds like a bunch of nothing." LOL. Really?
I'm on the "let's deal with the world we live in, not the world we want to live in" side, not you. You're on the putting-fingers-in-your-ears-and-going-lalalala side.
I don't now if today's actions has made a difference; we'll have to wait and see. It's certainly possible, whereas your alternative makes Syria's use of them more likely - and the use of them by other countries.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.
Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.
In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
Sorry but that's bollocks - if May could consult her cabinet on Thursday then there's no reason not to have recalled Parliament to meet on either Thursday or Friday.
Why insult me - just say you disagree which is fair enough
Didn't insult you, I insulted the idea that this was such an emergency that getting the consent of Parliament was impossible. The chemical weapons attack on Douma happened a week ago. When almost the same thing happened in 2013, the chemical weapons use was on the Monday, Parliament was recalled on Tuesday to meet on the Thursday. There is absolutely no reason why May could not have done the same thing.
Suggesting I am talking bollocks is unnecessary
I am content with TM action on this and Parliament will have it's say on Monday
Mr Big G, I do not know you and have no basis to insult you and I haven't insulted you. If I had wished to insult you then I would have.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
A missile strike for a few hours is not a war, there is nothing further for Corbyn to campaign against and the news cycle will have moved on in a few days
It is a further step to war.
We have already been bombing one rebel faction in Syria, and have along with the USA troops on the ground in Eastern Syria, now we are bombing the government there too.
This is not a game of ring and run, we are tiptoing to war.
The setting of red lines you don't mean is always problematic.
Obama set them, but being a nice guy, he listened to others and did very little. That just makes things worse. If you're a parent and you have a mischievous child, then you set boundaries and stick to them. Or you make things worse in the future.
I'm not suggesting Putin/Assad is necessarily a mischievous child but his aim is clear. He wants to reassert Russian power and influence and will do what he thinks is necessary. Unless it's not worth the price. If you set red lines and ignore them, Putin will push more.
In that sense May's actions make some sense, but that begs the question whether setting imaginary red lines is ever a good idea.
PS For Syria, it's not in the slightest bit constructive.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombing Assad, albeit in 2013.
An overruling of Parliament by the executive that sets an interesting precedent.
I believe the crown has prerogative in such matters.
Whilst the government does enjoy crown prerogative the most recent constitutional convention set by both Labour and Conservative administrations is that Parliament is more directly involved.
The question is whether there was time for Parliament to be involved. In my view there was and it was a severe error of judgement for the Prime Minister to circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny.
That said I fully support these airstrikes.
A short lived convention, if it ever was one.
The government will claim there was no time to invoke the convention, albeit in principle they would have liked to have done so. Such a position is untenable.
Clearly there will be times where operational requirements make prior parliamentary scrutiny a non starter. However this action has been flagged for several days. It is a failure of leadership for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons and make the case for military action.
Listening overnight to live reaction it is clear that the strategy was being discussed and agreed between the allies over the last week and it would have been impossible for TM to consult Parliament with plans that were evolving.
In this case I accept TM was correct to act as she did
Sorry but that's bollocks - if May could consult her cabinet on Thursday then there's no reason not to have recalled Parliament to meet on either Thursday or Friday.
Why insult me - just say you disagree which is fair enough
Didn't insult you, I insulted the idea that this was such an emergency that getting the consent of Parliament was impossible. The chemical weapons attack on Douma happened a week ago. When almost the same thing happened in 2013, the chemical weapons use was on the Monday, Parliament was recalled on Tuesday to meet on the Thursday. There is absolutely no reason why May could not have done the same thing.
Suggesting I am talking bollocks is unnecessary
I am content with TM action on this and Parliament will have it's say on Monday
Mr Big G, I do not know you and have no basis to insult you and I haven't insulted you. If I had wished to insult you then I would have.
One question for the wise: if the world has known about Novichok and its variants for a decade or two, then why has the OPCW not put it on their chemical weapons list? Is there a mechanism to add weapons to treaties? If so, have they tried?
Given the way technology has allowed a whole range of new potential weapons, it seems sensible that treaties should be easy to extend (with agreement from the signatories) to other related weapons.
One thing I wish to come out of this mess is for *stronger* treaties on the use of such weapons (and then hopefully extending to other weapons).
In the same way the Security Council fails to pass resolutions against use of chemical weapons, any such effort to extend the treaty is almost certainly impossible without Russian cooperation.
Theresa will finally have done something Tony agree's with anyway (although he'll think as Damascus hasn't had the crap bombed out of it that she didn't go far enough...)
So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.
He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.
Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.
Sometimres there are no good alternatives, but this is not our war. At least it wasn't until today.
There are no easy answers but a message has rightly been sent to Assad and any future despots planning to use chemical weapons - there will be consequences.
Really? The bombing of a few probably empty buildings? You really think this does anything except highlight how utterly impotent the West is? This was nothing more than armed virtue signalling.
The big problem I have with this action is that it isn't going to achieve anything. We've bombed Assad before when he's used BCW, so have the Americans, and yet he carries on doing it.
The only realistic way of stopping him would be to disrupt his supply lines, which I'm assuming and indeed hoping - given that would mean bombing seven shades of shit out of Russia - is not on the table.
On the constitutional point, May is correct, she doesn't need parliamentary backing for this. However, I think she would have been wiser to get it. She will surely come up against the left in her own party who will be angry they weren't consulted. Meanwhile I disagree with those posters who think Corbyn will struggle. I think between lack of parliamentary sanction and principled stands against meddling in internal affairs of other nations this is an issue Labour will unite on. Her best chance might be to persuade the Commons that she feared if she didn't go along with it Trump would bomb the Russians, but that would be to say the least a reckless thing to say.
I'm not sure where this is going but I'm uneasy. Realistically however the real error was not toppling Saddam in 1991, leaving him free to use chemical weapons on his own people and causing all the trouble of the Second Gulf War. So it's a bit late to cry over that spilt milk.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
A missile strike for a few hours is not a war, there is nothing further for Corbyn to campaign against and the news cycle will have moved on in a few days
It is a further step to war.
We have already been bombing one rebel faction in Syria, and have along with the USA troops on the ground in Eastern Syria, now we are bombing the government there too.
This is not a game of ring and run, we are tiptoing to war.
No we bombed ISIS first and even that was not a full scale war in terms of western involvement, now we are lobbing a few missiles at Assad after he used chemical weapons against civilians. No one is talking about ground troops beyond the handful of special forces already there
It wasn't just ignored by Saddam. The West played an active military role in facilitating his use of Chemical Weapons, providing tactical battlefield data to allow him to target Iranian military formations. Numerous Western countries turned a blind eye to their own companies exporting the materials to make the weapons to him.
The idea that we have any moral highground in this what so ever is frankly laughable. We only oppose the use of chemical weapons when it is by those we oppose. When it is by our allies or our proxies we are more than happy to ignore it or even facilitate it.
My reading on this (admittedly in the past) gives a slightly different story for what happened back then. But even if you are right, that does not bar us from doing the right thing now - as someone said the other day: the fact we were complicit in slavery does not mean we cannot act to stop slavery now.
It was and is a stupid analogy. When we were involved in the slave trade we were breaking no laws or international treaties. There was no moral highground to cling to. We were just doing business and then we changed our minds.
When we actively supported the use of chemical weapons by Iraq we were supporting the breaking of treaties. The very treaties you now cling to as being so important. I am afraid any moral highground we once had on this subject disappeared in the mid 80s.
It's a great analogy. You just don't like it.
If 'we' did actively supported Iraq, then we did wrong. I've already said our ignoring of the attacks and muted response to them does us absolutely no credit, and that makes it worse. In fact, I'm the poster who consistently mentions that.
But that does not mean we cannot do the right thing now. And as I've said passim, there have been hundreds of conflicts around the world where chemical weapons could have provided one side or the other (or both) with tactical advantages, but they were not used. This is solely down to the weapons treaties that essentially banned their manufacture and use.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
A missile strike for a few hours is not a war, there is nothing further for Corbyn to campaign against and the news cycle will have moved on in a few days
It is a further step to war.
We have already been bombing one rebel faction in Syria, and have along with the USA troops on the ground in Eastern Syria, now we are bombing the government there too.
This is not a game of ring and run, we are tiptoing to war.
No we bombed ISIS first and even that was not a full scale war in terms of western involvement, now we are lobbing a few missiles at Assad after he used chemical weapons against civilians. No one is talking about ground troops beyond the handful of special forces already there
OK. So what's the ultimate objective ? Is it we need to "do something"?
The goal for the Western allies doesn't need to be anything more than containment of Assad. Containment worked against the USSR during the Cold War and Saddam's Iraq during the 1990s until Bush's disastrous war. Make him realise that a chemical weapons attack hurts his war effort more than it helps, and implement a no fly zone to stop him carpet bombing. Don't get any grand ideas about regime change or nation building.
Theresa will finally have done something Tony agree's with anyway (although he'll think as Damascus hasn't had the crap bombed out of it that she didn't go far enough...)
Tone will be thinking "all those civilians, still alive, she hasn't done this properly!"
Stupid question really, because all three were important, at any rate in the European theatre. Russia provided the manpower, Britain the strategic location and the intelligence (that's information, not brainpower!) and the Americans provided the money and equipment.
OK, that's a simplification because everyone provided some of each - we provided money and manpower, the Russians provided technical stuff, the Americans certainly provided men. However, the key thing about the Second World War was that it was a genuinely allied victory. All parts came together using their key strengths to overwhelm Nazi Germany and its allies.
That's not to say that we couldn't have beaten Germany on our own given time and the backing of the Commonwealth. We probably could, although it seems unlikely Australia and India could have resisted the Japanese without American help. Certainly the Soviets could have done, or the Americans. But it would have taken much longer and been far more costly, incredible though that statement may seem given the length and pain of the Second World War.
One question for the wise: if the world has known about Novichok and its variants for a decade or two, then why has the OPCW not put it on their chemical weapons list? Is there a mechanism to add weapons to treaties? If so, have they tried?
Given the way technology has allowed a whole range of new potential weapons, it seems sensible that treaties should be easy to extend (with agreement from the signatories) to other related weapons.
One thing I wish to come out of this mess is for *stronger* treaties on the use of such weapons (and then hopefully extending to other weapons).
In the same way the Security Council fails to pass resolutions against use of chemical weapons, any such effort to extend the treaty is almost certainly impossible without Russian cooperation.
I agree. But I'm wondering if they have tried, and even if there is a mechanism in the existing treaties to do so, or whether it requires totally new treaties (sadly, I guess it does).
The goal for the Western allies doesn't need to be anything more than containment of Assad. Containment worked against the USSR during the Cold War and Saddam's Iraq during the 1990s until Bush's disastrous war. Make him realise that a chemical weapons attack hurts his war effort more than it helps, and implement a no fly zone to stop him carpet bombing. Don't get any grand ideas about regime change or nation building.
Trying to implement no fly zone would turn into a proxy war with Russia. Also the key word is trying, Syria has a huge amount of Russian AA weaponry precisely to prevent any no fly zone being implemented.
Stupid question really, because all three were important, at any rate in the European theatre. Russia provided the manpower, Britain the strategic location and the intelligence (that's information, not brainpower!) and the Americans provided the money and equipment.
OK, that's a simplification because everyone provided some of each - we provided money and manpower, the Russians provided technical stuff, the Americans certainly provided men. However, the key thing about the Second World War was that it was a genuinely allied victory. All parts came together using their key strengths to overwhelm Nazi Germany and its allies.
That's not to say that we couldn't have beaten Germany on our own given time and the backing of the Commonwealth. We probably could, although it seems unlikely Australia and India could have resisted the Japanese without American help. Certainly the Soviets could have done, or the Americans. But it would have taken much longer and been far more costly, incredible though that statement may seem given the length and pain of the Second World War.
The UK is the only one where it could be definitively said the Germans would have won without us, given there was a period where it was the only one fighting the Nazis.
It wasn't just ignored by Saddam. The West played an active military role in facilitating his use of Chemical Weapons, providing tactical battlefield data to allow him to target Iranian military formations. Numerous Western countries turned a blind eye to their own companies exporting the materials to make the weapons to him.
The idea that we have any moral highground in this what so ever is frankly laughable. We only oppose the use of chemical weapons when it is by those we oppose. When it is by our allies or our proxies we are more than happy to ignore it or even facilitate it.
My reading on this (admittedly in the past) gives a slightly different story for what happened back then. But even if you are right, that does not bar us from doing the right thing now - as someone said the other day: the fact we were complicit in slavery does not mean we cannot act to stop slavery now.
It was and is a stupid analogy. When we were involved in the slave trade we were breaking no laws or international treaties. There was no moral highground to cling to. We were just doing business and then we changed our minds.
When we actively supported the use of chemical weapons by Iraq we were supporting the breaking of treaties. The very treaties you now cling to as being so important. I am afraid any moral highground we once had on this subject disappeared in the mid 80s.
It's a great analogy. You just don't like it.
If 'we' did actively supported Iraq, then we did wrong. I've already said our ignoring of the attacks and muted response to them does us absolutely no credit, and that makes it worse. In fact, I'm the poster who consistently mentions that.
But that does not mean we cannot do the right thing now. And as I've said passim, there have been hundreds of conflicts around the world where chemical weapons could have provided one side or the other (or both) with tactical advantages, but they were not used. This is solely down to the weapons treaties that essentially banned their manufacture and use.
Its a rubbish analogy and you know it. In the case of slavery we decided to change the laws and then stuck to them and enforced them. In the case of Chemical Weapons we decided to ignore or break the existing laws when it suited us and then cried when someone else did the same thing. We then tried to use those same laws we had broken as justification for throwing missiles at other countries. It is no wonder we are not taken seriously.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
A missile strike for a few hours is not a war, there is nothing further for Corbyn to campaign against and the news cycle will have moved on in a few days
It is a further step to war.
We have already been bombing one rebel faction in Syria, and have along with the USA troops on the ground in Eastern Syria, now we are bombing the government there too.
This is not a game of ring and run, we are tiptoing to war.
No we bombed ISIS first and even that was not a full scale war in terms of western involvement, now we are lobbing a few missiles at Assad after he used chemical weapons against civilians. No one is talking about ground troops beyond the handful of special forces already there
If we actually believed in upholding the CW treaties then we would indeed be talking about ground troops. Anything else we do from a military point of view is just meaningless.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Yes wasn't it. Apparently it was an illegal strike which makes Theresa May as serious a criminal as Bashir Assad.
Who is suggesting it was an illegal strike Roger?
As for your suggestion that May is as bad as Assad, sorry, but speaking as somebody who was opposed to this that is a crazy remark. That's the sort of insanity I would expect from Steve Wilson or JWisemann. Would you say an armed mugger is as bad as a serial murderer? There are degrees in all things, even crime (which May's actions are not) and Assad has put himself on a level comparable to or even worse than Stalin.
At worst, May, Macron and Trump have made a bad decision, not a criminal one.
This is a continuum of the last election campaign. She is NOT a president and bombing a country without parliament's authority is not acceptable. I hope she pays a heavy political price for her hubris. Listening to her at 2 AM talking about herself and HER decision was chilling. Blair Mk2
She is likely to admired for her ability to make a very difficult decision.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
I reckon the opposite.
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
A missile strike for a few hours is not a war, there is nothing further for Corbyn to campaign against and the news cycle will have moved on in a few days
It is a further step to war.
We have already been bombing one rebel faction in Syria, and have along with the USA troops on the ground in Eastern Syria, now we are bombing the government there too.
This is not a game of ring and run, we are tiptoing to war.
No we bombed ISIS first and even that was not a full scale war in terms of western involvement, now we are lobbing a few missiles at Assad after he used chemical weapons against civilians. No one is talking about ground troops beyond the handful of special forces already there
If we actually believed in upholding the CW treaties then we would indeed be talking about ground troops. Anything else we do from a military point of view is just meaningless.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Yes wasn't it. Apparently it was an illegal strike which makes Theresa May as serious a criminal as Bashir Assad.
What a stupid thing to say
It's the lunacy of the stupid portion of the left on full display. I always assumed they would be kept to the margins, but the infection has now taken over the host.
Comments
Further I would formally state that the Syrian regime constitutes a rogue state and those in the chain of command of Syrian chemical weapons, through to Assad, are legitimate military targets unless they agree to surrender to an appropriate war crimes court.
It's also interesting that you assume it will happen again - something that is essentially guaranteed with your do-nothing position.
But to answer your question, it would depend on the circumstances and thee evidence. But I repeat my position: if we are to have treaties banning weapons, then those treaties need to be upheld. Otherwise they're pointless.
F1: the Raikkonen bet came off. Mildly surprised it was Vettel rather than a team mate that pipped him to top third practice, but it's nice to have a green bet.
Mercedes must be getting worried. China has been a happy hunting ground for them in recent years and today Ferrari was over the hills and far away.
On-topic: just watched the May video. Agree with her sentiments.
I don't see how those other acts would make the slightest difference.
As an aside, many moons ago I met two RAF staff who worked in Gulf War 1. This was years later, but they told me that they had been using so many weapons that they were running out of modern fuses, and had to resort to using very old stocks. The only problem was that no-one knew for sure how to use them. A trip to the Imperial war museum produced documentation and brass plaques containing the details.
I'd love to know how much truth there was in that story. It certainly seems plausible.
I don't think it makes a difference on how safe the world is. The treaty is being ignored today.
I think I saw a UFO this morning. It was a really strange thing: a small yellow circle in a small expanse of blue. I've no idea what it was.
Has anyone else encountered this strange phenomena?
Goes away to check odds on Bottas to win the race.
For all his tyranny and evils, Assad runs a more tolerant and secular country than the Islamists of Al Quaida or ISIS. Assad is no threat to us, unlike his opponents.
Syria is such a mess that the only wise course of action, IMO, was for the west to stay out.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers, though I think he was just mispriced. Interesting thought on Bottas (did hear somewhere that some reckon the evens side of the track might be the better for the grid).
Bet Bashar's quaking in his boots.
'A message has been sent' can be added to the pile of political bs which Includes 'let me be clear' and 'lessons will be learnt'.
I am very happy that she has ignored the non-convention that Parliament should be consulted. It is for the executive to take decisions about war and peace. If Parliament disagrees, they can no-confidence the PM.
Interesting, the ConHome survey (ducks and covers) shows party members backing the PM’s right to act in this way by 3 to 1. They haven’t published the results on whether we should be involved, which suggests to me they are less favourable.
But there have been countless conflicts over the last ninety years where such weapons might have been of use to one or all sides, and they were not used. That is where the successive treaties have proved vital.
There has been enough ignoring of the breaches. It is time to show regimes that might now be considering developing - or worse using - these weapons that there will be an international response. That you will be pariahs.
Your 'response' will guarantee further chemical attacks in other conflicts, or even against us - again.
It's not too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
I am content with TM action on this and Parliament will have it's say on Monday
However, the attack has received widespread support from NATO, the EU, Canada, Australia, Turkey and others
Betfair back prices (in grid order):
SV 1.72
KR 7.4
VB 11
LH 4.5
MV 20
DR 23
If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then this is a nonsense argument we're having.
Corbyn is the one who is going to have to try to keep his party together
The long straight means that if, say, Raikkonen passes but Vettel follows closely, the lead could perhaps be retaken on lap 1.
The idea that we have any moral highground in this what so ever is frankly laughable. We only oppose the use of chemical weapons when it is by those we oppose. When it is by our allies or our proxies we are more than happy to ignore it or even facilitate it.
You can guarantee there will be things going on that we won't be hearing about: the strikes are just the 'public' face of action - there will be black ops and diplomatic actions as well.
You are on the Tyndallite faction: that these treaties are not worth upholding. IMV that's dangerous and harmful to the world. In short, it's crazy.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/13/jaguar-land-rover-to-announce-1000-job-cuts-next-week?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Jezza made his name campaigning against unpopular wars, it is likely to play to his strengths, away from some of the other issues of the past month.
If you really cared about punishing the use of chemical weapons then you would be advocating a full scale western intervention in Syria with regime change. But of course you won't do that because the price is too high.
FWIW...
I'm on the "let's deal with the world we live in, not the world we want to live in" side.
Do you honestly believe that today's actions (seen or unseen) have made an iota of difference to Syria's capability of delivering chemical weapons attacks?
I'm genuinely interested to know, because if the answer is yes then you have more than just one screw loose.
As I said it would all be over in a few hours
Some things may well be Brexit related , this is not one of them
If the evens side of the grid is grippier, then he could end up going backwards off the line.
I think things kind of moved on overnight?
Nevermind David. It's a good read anyway...
That is the worrying point for those who want JC to be PM.
It will be interesting to see his private and public reactions to a possible Hezbollah and Iranian attack on Israel ...
When we actively supported the use of chemical weapons by Iraq we were supporting the breaking of treaties. The very treaties you now cling to as being so important. I am afraid any moral highground we once had on this subject disappeared in the mid 80s.
To think that such an aim can be achieved by chucking a few missiles in, some unseen black ops or diplomatic pressure is at best naïve or at worst delusional.
LOL. Really?
I'm on the "let's deal with the world we live in, not the world we want to live in" side, not you. You're on the putting-fingers-in-your-ears-and-going-lalalala side.
I don't now if today's actions has made a difference; we'll have to wait and see. It's certainly possible, whereas your alternative makes Syria's use of them more likely - and the use of them by other countries.
We have already been bombing one rebel faction in Syria, and have along with the USA troops on the ground in Eastern Syria, now we are bombing the government there too.
This is not a game of ring and run, we are tiptoing to war.
Obama set them, but being a nice guy, he listened to others and did very little. That just makes things worse. If you're a parent and you have a mischievous child, then you set boundaries and stick to them. Or you make things worse in the future.
I'm not suggesting Putin/Assad is necessarily a mischievous child but his aim is clear. He wants to reassert Russian power and influence and will do what he thinks is necessary. Unless it's not worth the price. If you set red lines and ignore them, Putin will push more.
In that sense May's actions make some sense, but that begs the question whether setting imaginary red lines is ever a good idea.
PS For Syria, it's not in the slightest bit constructive.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
The only realistic way of stopping him would be to disrupt his supply lines, which I'm assuming and indeed hoping - given that would mean bombing seven shades of shit out of Russia - is not on the table.
On the constitutional point, May is correct, she doesn't need parliamentary backing for this. However, I think she would have been wiser to get it. She will surely come up against the left in her own party who will be angry they weren't consulted. Meanwhile I disagree with those posters who think Corbyn will struggle. I think between lack of parliamentary sanction and principled stands against meddling in internal affairs of other nations this is an issue Labour will unite on. Her best chance might be to persuade the Commons that she feared if she didn't go along with it Trump would bomb the Russians, but that would be to say the least a reckless thing to say.
I'm not sure where this is going but I'm uneasy. Realistically however the real error was not toppling Saddam in 1991, leaving him free to use chemical weapons on his own people and causing all the trouble of the Second Gulf War. So it's a bit late to cry over that spilt milk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria–Lebanon_Campaign
The fighting with Vichy was our last of many wars against France
If 'we' did actively supported Iraq, then we did wrong. I've already said our ignoring of the attacks and muted response to them does us absolutely no credit, and that makes it worse. In fact, I'm the poster who consistently mentions that.
But that does not mean we cannot do the right thing now. And as I've said passim, there have been hundreds of conflicts around the world where chemical weapons could have provided one side or the other (or both) with tactical advantages, but they were not used. This is solely down to the weapons treaties that essentially banned their manufacture and use.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/our-survey-party-members-back-war-without-a-commons-vote-by-three-to-one.html
OK, that's a simplification because everyone provided some of each - we provided money and manpower, the Russians provided technical stuff, the Americans certainly provided men. However, the key thing about the Second World War was that it was a genuinely allied victory. All parts came together using their key strengths to overwhelm Nazi Germany and its allies.
That's not to say that we couldn't have beaten Germany on our own given time and the backing of the Commonwealth. We probably could, although it seems unlikely Australia and India could have resisted the Japanese without American help. Certainly the Soviets could have done, or the Americans. But it would have taken much longer and been far more costly, incredible though that statement may seem given the length and pain of the Second World War.
As for your suggestion that May is as bad as Assad, sorry, but speaking as somebody who was opposed to this that is a crazy remark. That's the sort of insanity I would expect from Steve Wilson or JWisemann. Would you say an armed mugger is as bad as a serial murderer? There are degrees in all things, even crime (which May's actions are not) and Assad has put himself on a level comparable to or even worse than Stalin.
At worst, May, Macron and Trump have made a bad decision, not a criminal one.