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.
It’s not a bad analogy - and in the case of slavery we were quite happy to deal with countries (notably the US) who still practiced it, in very much the same way.
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.
No, it isn't.
So I'll ask the question again, you keep avoiding it. How do you propose to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria without a ground invasion, regime change or (in a real worst case scenario) a proxy war with Russia?
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.
No, it isn't.
So I'll ask the question again, you keep avoiding it. How do you propose to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria without a ground invasion, regime change or (in a real worst case scenario) a proxy war with Russia?
By inflicting greater damage on Assad's military position than he gets benefit from the chemical attack.
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.
But without us there would have been a very different war in the first place, probably a war against the Soviets in about 1943. So in a sense that is again the wrong question. It is very interesting to speculate on what the result of that might have been. I would still have backed the Soviet Union to win, but it might have been very tight.
It’s not a bad analogy - and in the case of slavery we were quite happy to deal with countries (notably the US) who still practiced it, in very much the same way.
We still do, given our dealings with Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
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.
No, it isn't.
So I'll ask the question again, you keep avoiding it. How do you propose to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria without a ground invasion, regime change or (in a real worst case scenario) a proxy war with Russia?
By inflicting greater damage on Assad's military position than he gets benefit from the chemical attack.
And how do we do that without bombing Russian bases and ending up fighting a proxy war with Russia?
I see no way intervening further will improve the situation, so I don't criticise any MPs who, after due consideration do not support it either. It's a quagmire, and it's a very tough call. But it was still a low moment for Ed M for how he has come as close to a direct lie as most politicians get when he presents his position as something not supported by what his own amendment was seeking.
I also see no point in MPs discussing it. They've said it all before, and both sides woukd just grandstand. Vince cable seems downright confused, in one sentence saying the PM must recall parliament to get a mandate and in the next merely that it would be unwise not to (ie it is not a requirement) and while not recalling for a vote would give ammunition to complain, I see no rule that it must be, and no political or public benefit to doing so. The vote might be lost, and even if won it won't protect from personal critique of being involved, and we know for a fact the opposition won't be affected by any split on the matter.
So really parliament being involved now woukd just be a waste of time, no matter whether it backed action or not, and no matter if further action is a good idea or not.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
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.
No, it isn't.
So I'll ask the question again, you keep avoiding it. How do you propose to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria without a ground invasion, regime change or (in a real worst case scenario) a proxy war with Russia?
I have been asking him that same question for several days Max. He won't give an answer because he doesn't have one. Apparently our virtue bombing is going to produce some Damascene conversion in Assad.
Mr. Jonathan, as Mercer explained, the full intelligence cannot be given to every MP, so any vote (instituted by Blair to bind the Commons to his dodgy dossier-driven decision) would be made by people without all the facts.
Military action is and must remain an executive decision.
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.
Look I’m on the fence about this and far from gung ho about it, but to give moral equivalence to Assad and May, is bollocks. And we all know it.
On whose authority did she bomb a third country? I've just been listening to an international lawyer on radio who believes it was illegal. Of course there's an equivalence. She is taking international law into her own hands.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed to bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
As an aside, I've always found the concept of a legal war faintly ridiculous.
"We've launched an invasion! A thousand tanks, hundreds of bombs, five divisions!"
"Oh, but Prime Minister, you forgot to sign this piece of paper!"
"Damn. Well, better sound the retreat, I suppose."
Legality is either international or national. Internationally, it means getting approval (or at least neutrality) from Russia and China. Nationally, it rests in the hands of the PM. Idiots like Corbyn believe giving Russia a veto over foreign policy is a good idea. Which leaves us with the national picture, and such matters are for the Government/PM to determine.
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
Well, the endgame in Syria will be interesting.
Currently the Russians and Syrian government forces are West of the Euphrates*,and should be able to consolidate their control there. Kurds control the East and North, with a significant US and UK support. Personally, I quite like the Kurds as a secular, fairly left wing community with a reasonable record from the region on human rights. Our Turkish NATO ally likes them much less. Will Assad and Turkey tolerate an autonomous Kurdish region? I think not, partly because it is where the Syrian oil is, and partly because Turkey doesn't want a Kurdistan state.
*this not very well known battle happened when an Assad column crossed the river, including some Russian Mercenaries. Der Spiegel seems to have done the best ground level investigation of US troops shooting Russians in recent times:
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
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.
Well, that's you not going to the USA in the foreseeable future.
I'd give certain Scottish golf courses a miss too.
Mr. Jonathan, as Mercer explained, the full intelligence cannot be given to every MP, so any vote (instituted by Blair to bind the Commons to his dodgy dossier-driven decision) would be made by people without all the facts.
Military action is and must remain an executive decision.
No. We had made progress . Military action needs oversight. May has chosen not to learn the lessons of the past.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed tp.bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Really? So where do MaxPB and CD13 and Twisted Firestopper and I (along with plenty of other posters on here) fit into that? Certainly none of us admire Putin in any way. And we sure as hell are not diehard leftwingers.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
On the PR front, it will be unpopular because we're interfering in a faraway war with no real purpose. If it is seen to do some good and there are no recriminations on us, then we'll see support strengthen for the action.
You'll never get public support for bombing a group of foreigners who aren't directly affecting us.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
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.
No, it isn't.
So I'll ask the question again, you keep avoiding it. How do you propose to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria without a ground invasion, regime change or (in a real worst case scenario) a proxy war with Russia?
I have been asking him that same question for several days Max. He won't give an answer because he doesn't have one. Apparently our virtue bombing is going to produce some Damascene conversion in Assad.
And I've answered it many times: make the effect of using them worse than the advantage he gains from using them. There are many ways this can be done, of which overt military action is just one part.
You don't like my answer: fair enough. But it's an answer, and it's much better than your non-solution to this mess.
It's worth dwelling on your position: you think the relevant treaties are worthless and essentially want them ripped up. That's truly mad.
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.
Look I’m on the fence about this and far from gung ho about it, but to give moral equivalence to Assad and May, is bollocks. And we all know it.
On whose authority did she bomb a third country? I've just been listening to an international lawyer on radio who believes it was illegal. Of course there's an equivalence. She is taking international law into her own hands.
NOTE "I've taken this decision"
“An international lawyer on the radio”. Wow. That’s that then.
Back on planet earth, last time I checked, for all her faults, I’m sure it might've made the papers if May used the RAF to drop chlorine bombs on some British city.
I am really really iffy about our actions but can see both points of view, but Roger, read back what you’re saying. Really??
Mr. Jonathan, the lesson of the past is that giving the Commons a vote can lead to what many subsequently consider to be absolutely horrendous mistakes (such as the invasion of Iraq). It is the first duty of our national leader, and has been going back all the way to pre-parliamentary days, to keep the nation secure. That means decisive action.
Blair only asked the Commons because he sought to bind other MPs to his highly dubious decision, and the questionable sources in support of it.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed tp.bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Really? So where do MaxPB and CD13 and Twisted Firestopper and I (along with plenty of other posters on here) fit into that? Certainly none of us admire Putin in any way. And we sure as hell are not diehard leftwingers.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
A much more likely scenario is that it will have zero impact on the next election. How many people vote based on foreign policy? I think we'd have to go back to the Hang the Kaiser election in 1918 (and even then there was a Homes fit for Heroes meme as well). If controversial foreign policies lost elections Blair would have been defeated in 2005 and Macmillan in 1959.
That's assuming this doesn't escalate, of course, and the next election has to be suspended.
So May has gone ahead despite Parliament voted against bombinecutive 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
Clearly there will 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 <\blockquote> Appropriate members of the Privy Council would have had further knowledge. Parliament should have been recalled and the Prime Minister has failed in her duty to Parliament and the nation.
I have a pair of boots whose age was already in double figures when this "convention" was established. You may hope it will in due course become a convention, and you may be right, but "failed in her duty" overstates the case.
I would agree with that. How can something be a failure to duty and the nation when is not even a rule, not even an informal one? Maybe it should be, maybe it will become one, and maybe not doing so was a mistake, but if the authority resides in the executive then it is unfair to suggest a breach of duty when that authority is exercised.
And I am no gung ho supporter of executive power. I was perfectly content that the A50 case resulted in clarifying it did not have the level of authority it thought it did.
But if there are mounds of precedent it can act this way it is deeply misguiding, I believe, to suggest it is improper and a breach of rules just because there are recent examples of doing it differently. It might be wrong, but not improper. And that woukd be the case even if it were a firm convention, since my understanding is they have no actual legal standing.
Even if they "should" have been recalled, that is in no way proof it was improper that they werenot.
I see no way intervening further will improve the situation, so I don't criticise any MPs who, after due consideration do not support it either. It's a quagmire, and it's a very tough call. But it was still a low moment for Ed M for how he has come as close to a direct lie as most politicians get when he presents his position as something not supported by what his own amendment was seeking.
I also see no point in MPs discussing it. They've said it all before, and both sides woukd just grandstand. Vince cable seems downright confused, in one sentence saying the PM must recall parliament to get a mandate and in the next merely that it would be unwise not to (ie it is not a requirement) and while not recalling for a vote would give ammunition to complain, I see no rule that it must be, and no political or public benefit to doing so. The vote might be lost, and even if won it won't protect from personal critique of being involved, and we know for a fact the opposition won't be affected by any split on the matter.
So really parliament being involved now woukd just be a waste of time, no matter whether it backed action or not, and no matter if further action is a good idea or not.
I would suggest that the one good thing that might come out of this whole clusterfuck is if we finally get rid of those last idiotic vestiges of Royal Prerogative and make all planned military action subject to Parliamentary approval. You could have an exception for response to a direct immediate threat but in cases like this where the action is a planned attack on a country that poses no immediate threat to ourselves then Parliament should be the ones making that decision not the executive.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
I know Clinton's aim was bad (!) but I don't think even he aimed at Baghdad and hit Afghanistan...
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed to bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Polling this week showed that a plurality of Tory voters opposed missile strikes.
And I've answered it many times: make the effect of using them worse than the advantage he gains from using them. There are many ways this can be done, of which overt military action is just one part.
You don't like my answer: fair enough. But it's an answer, and it's much better than your non-solution to this mess.
It's worth dwelling on your position: you think the relevant treaties are worthless and essentially want them ripped up. That's truly mad.
How do we achieve that without entering a proxy was with Russia?
We'd need to start targeting Assad's Russian support to drastically weaken his position. Are you seriously suggesting that the west begins targeting Russian equipment, troops and bases with military strikes?
Again, I'm genuinely interested to know your answer.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed tp.bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Really? So where do MaxPB and CD13 and Twisted Firestopper and I (along with plenty of other posters on here) fit into that? Certainly none of us admire Putin in any way. And we sure as hell are not diehard leftwingers.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
A much more likely scenario is that it will have zero impact on the next election. How many people vote based on foreign policy? I think we'd have to go back to the Hang the Kaiser election in 1918 (and even then there was a Homes fit for Heroes meme as well). If controversial foreign policies lost elections Blair would have been defeated in 2005 and Macmillan in 1959.
That's assuming this doesn't escalate, of course, and the next election has to be suspended.
Are was arguing against HYUFDs characterisation of those opposing the bombing, not in support of the idea it might lead to a Corbyn victory. I agree with you in general that such things do not make much of a difference electorally although in my case it is just another reason not to support May. But then I had many of those anyway.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
I know Clinton's aim was bad (!) but I don't think even he aimed at Baghdad and hit Afghanistan...
I see I have to start giving you history lessons as well as Morris Dancer.
Happened three days after Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
It seems very odd to illegally bomb Syria to prevent Assad illegally using chemical weapons. More odd still that she should use Salisbury as a pretext. Surely she should be bombing Moscow? If international law counts for nothing then it's now a free for all and that includes Assad.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed tp.bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Really? So where do MaxPB and CD13 and Twisted Firestopper and I (along with plenty of other posters on here) fit into that? Certainly none of us admire Putin in any way. And we sure as hell are not diehard leftwingers.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
A much more likely scenario is that it will have zero impact on the next election. How many people vote based on foreign policy? I think we'd have to go back to the Hang the Kaiser election in 1918 (and even then there was a Homes fit for Heroes meme as well). If controversial foreign policies lost elections Blair would have been defeated in 2005 and Macmillan in 1959.
That's assuming this doesn't escalate, of course, and the next election has to be suspended.
Are was arguing against HYUFDs characterisation of those opposing the bombing, not in support of the idea it might lead to a Corbyn victory. I agree with you in general that such things do not make much of a difference electorally although in my case it is just another reason not to support May. But then I had many of those anyway.
Sorry, yes - I was really responding to HYUFD rather than you.
I think though that your post does underline that for most people foreign affairs are quite a minor matter, certainly compared to domestic issues.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
He also instituted no fly zones in the north and south, which arguably did. Would that policy have been sustainable in the absence of the disastrous Iraq invasion ? It’s an interesting counter-factual. (As is what a similar zone in northern Syria early in the conflict might, or might not, have achieved.)
It seems very odd to illegally bomb Syria to prevent Assad illegally using chemical weapons. More odd still that she should use Salisbury as a pretext. Surely she should be bombing Moscow? If international law counts for nothing then it's now a free for all and that includes Assad.
As I understand it the legality of the allies action comes under the OPCW treaty
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
I know Clinton's aim was bad (!) but I don't think even he aimed at Baghdad and hit Afghanistan...
I see I have to start giving you history lessons as well as Morris Dancer.
Happened three days after Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
And I've answered it many times: make the effect of using them worse than the advantage he gains from using them. There are many ways this can be done, of which overt military action is just one part.
You don't like my answer: fair enough. But it's an answer, and it's much better than your non-solution to this mess.
It's worth dwelling on your position: you think the relevant treaties are worthless and essentially want them ripped up. That's truly mad.
I think we have made them worthless and that until we are willing to enforce them properly with action that actually makes a difference they will remain worthless. The proper military response to this (and there are plenty of non military ones we should also be pursuing) if you think the sacrifice is worth it should have been a full scale invasion and regime change. Throwing a few missiles at a few buildings makes absolutely no difference at all.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed to bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
I think I disagree with this. Posters appear to be coalescing around several views:
*) That action needs taking to protect the treaties, amongst other reasons. *) The the treaties should be protected, but this isn't the way to do it. *) That the treaties are worthless and should be ripped up. *) Boo! Hiss! Tories!
Apart from the obvious one, there seems little correlation between the views and the political inclinations. And on the whole the discussions on here have been fairly good.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
I know Clinton's aim was bad (!) but I don't think even he aimed at Baghdad and hit Afghanistan...
I see I have to start giving you history lessons as well as Morris Dancer.
Happened three days after Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
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.
Yes. We have already seen this issue play out before. His party will not be united on this, perhaps, but it won't matter to his position and at best the public will be very divided, and over time as nothing improves any action we take will be more and more unpopular.
I happen to think Corbyn's srance is one the areas he is too inflexible on things, I think his reasoning suggests he has an automatic view and that is a bad thing (though automatic support for action is also bad) but sometimes his call be right and sometimes wrong, and given what a mess things are, his stance will have plenty of popularity.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
I know Clinton's aim was bad (!) but I don't think even he aimed at Baghdad and hit Afghanistan...
I see I have to start giving you history lessons as well as Morris Dancer.
Happened three days after Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed to bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
I think I disagree with this. Posters appear to be coalescing around several views:
*) That action needs taking to protect the treaties, amongst other reasons. *) The the treaties should be protected, but this isn't the way to do it. *) That the treaties are worthless and should be ripped up. *) Boo! Hiss! Tories!
Apart from the obvious one, there seems little correlation between the views and the political inclinations. And on the whole the discussions on here have been fairly good.
For the record I am of the second opinion but yes I think your list characterises the response pretty well.
All munitions use chemicals to explode. The effect of the chemicals is either tearing off limbs in an explosion or choking in the case of chlorine, or burning in the case of white phosphorous or napalm, or suffocation in the case of nerve agents. What's the difference?
I suspect in this case it was "just" chlorine which is easy to produce (electrolysis of salt water), denser than air, and therefore an effective way of getting at people in underground shelters rather than massive bombardment from above. Which is worse?
Wars are a filthy business. The civil war in Syria with multiple unsavoury combatants is particularly filthy. The sooner it stops the better. It will stop when Assad has won. We don't want to actively help him to win so the least damaging thing we can do is butt out.
It's Trump's red line that has been crossed (actually Obama's) and May clearly feels she needs to return the favour Trump gave us following Salisbury. Let's hope that the Russian response is also merely virtue signalling like us and that that is the end of it.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
I know Clinton's aim was bad (!) but I don't think even he aimed at Baghdad and hit Afghanistan...
I see I have to start giving you history lessons as well as Morris Dancer.
Happened three days after Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
And I've answered it many times: make the effect of using them worse than the advantage he gains from using them. There are many ways this can be done, of which overt military action is just one part.
You don't like my answer: fair enough. But it's an answer, and it's much better than your non-solution to this mess.
It's worth dwelling on your position: you think the relevant treaties are worthless and essentially want them ripped up. That's truly mad.
I think we have made them worthless and that until we are willing to enforce them properly with action that actually makes a difference they will remain worthless. The proper military response to this (and there are plenty of non military ones we should also be pursuing) if you think the sacrifice is worth it should have been a full scale invasion and regime change. Throwing a few missiles at a few buildings makes absolutely no difference at all.
You are making a massive assumption that what is needed is a full scale invasion and regime change. Perhaps that's because you quite like that idea, or because you don't want anything done and know that requirement means it'll never happen. Whichever it is, I think that assumption is wrong.
As you say, there are non-military ones as well, and ones that do not risk all-out war. What we are seeing will just be the 'public' actions.
It seems very odd to illegally bomb Syria to prevent Assad illegally using chemical weapons. More odd still that she should use Salisbury as a pretext. Surely she should be bombing Moscow? If international law counts for nothing then it's now a free for all and that includes Assad.
As I understand it the legality of the allies action comes under the OPCW treaty
I've swung round to @JosiasJessop's view on denying the denizens of mountain caves sustenance.
When the only source is an unnamed lawyer on an unidentified radio programme parroting a line originating from the Kremlin - they really are remarkable for their lack of self-awareness, aren't they? - and making a false moral equivalence, there seems little point in engaging.
Shame, because on other topics he's an interesting poster.
Mr. Barnesian, there are specific treaties against the use of certain weapons, including chemical weapons.
The umbrella group of WMD [as they're called] always gets more attention and censure than standard weapons. The Tokyo bombing by the Soviets killed more people than either nuclear strike at the end of WWII, but gets scarcely any attention.
Doing nothing at all is a green light not only for Assad to continue using chemical weapons but to every future dictator who finds himself in trouble to do the same.
No adverse consequences of that ignominious beginning were there? and no usage of chemical weapons as a result?
Death from above via drones and missiles appears to Western politicians as a politically cheap form of warfare, but when we sow the wind we reap the whirlwind.
I find the attitudes being exhibited by some on here today distressingly naive both as to the law and the politics of this.
There is no legal requirement for a government to gain parliamentary approval for military action. The votes in recent years do not set a precedent. They do not bind any future government to seek such a vote. To pretend otherwise is to show a lack of understanding of our constitutional procedures and powers.
International agreement through the UN is impossible due to Russia and their veto. Wasting time on motions that would fail only allows Assad and Putin to further conceal and obfuscate.
There is surprising unanimity from a wide cross section of the international community. There is also little real doubt that this limited and highly targeted engagement falls squarely within international law.
The only people who appear to think otherwise are Syria, Russia and a man who has acted as an apologist for both regimes.
Failure to act would have been a gross dereliction of moral duty. Chemical weapons cannot be allowed to be used. Taking measured steps to reduce the capability of the Assad regime to use them was a necessary and legal step to take.
Words mean nothing to Assad and Putin. Condemning them is water off a duck's back to them.
As far as I can recall Blair did not put UK air strikes in Kosovo against the Serbs to a full Parliamentary vote
Didn't he also launch air strikes against Iraq in 1997-98 (I forget exactly when) with lots of tough rhetoric about supporting our allies (backing Bill Clinton, in that case)?
I think you are right, Clinton like Trump lobbed a few missiles then at Saddam without putting in groundtroops and with the UK alongside
A point perhaps to remember however is that it didn't work.
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
That was the perfect example of the chaos theory.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
I know Clinton's aim was bad (!) but I don't think even he aimed at Baghdad and hit Afghanistan...
I see I have to start giving you history lessons as well as Morris Dancer.
Happened three days after Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Think of all the subtext of a black man, being beaten up by a load of white South Africans, subsequently hammering them into the ground. It would have been the perfect metaphor for dismantling apartheid!
Edit - here is that performance in all its glory: https://youtu.be/BHzjsjmmZB0 Allan Donald later said 'his rhythm was superb, his line perfect and we made him look awesome.'
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed to bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
I think I disagree with this. Posters appear to be coalescing around several views:
*) That action needs taking to protect the treaties, amongst other reasons. *) The the treaties should be protected, but this isn't the way to do it. *) That the treaties are worthless and should be ripped up. *) Boo! Hiss! Tories!
Apart from the obvious one, there seems little correlation between the views and the political inclinations. And on the whole the discussions on here have been fairly good.
Yes, I think that's a good list. FWIW I fall between option 2 and 3.
If we don't have the resolve for option 2 then option 3 is the inevitable conclusion.
All munitions use chemicals to explode. The effect of the chemicals is either tearing off limbs in an explosion or choking in the case of chlorine, or burning in the case of white phosphorous or napalm, or suffocation in the case of nerve agents. What's the difference?
I suspect in this case it was "just" chlorine which is easy to produce (electrolysis of salt water), denser than air, and therefore an effective way of getting at people in underground shelters rather than massive bombardment from above. Which is worse?
Wars are a filthy business. The civil war in Syria with multiple unsavoury combatants is particularly filthy. The sooner it stops the better. It will stop when Assad has won. We don't want to actively help him to win so the least damaging thing we can do is butt out.
It's Trump's red line that has been crossed (actually Obama's) and May clearly feels she needs to return the favour Trump gave us following Salisbury. Let's hope that the Russian response is also merely virtue signalling like us and that that is the end of it.
Chemical and biological weapons have characteristics that make them useful in certain situations - area denial, for instance, or terror.
These weapons have been banned, and that is a good thing. Saying that just because other weapons have been banned we should not have a ban on these is odd. If anything, we should be going the other way: ensuring the bans work and attempting to get other agreements to ban other weapons.
It's sad that so many Labour supporters do not see this, especially if they are inn favour of disarmament. For there are only two ways to ensure disarmament: trusted treaties between countries, or surrender.
I'm surprised that May isn't going for a retrospective parliamentary vote as I think they would win that quite easily. It would have been far easier for a Tory MP to vote against action in Syria than to censure a Tory Prime Minister for an action that's already been taken.
As an aside, I've always found the concept of a legal war faintly ridiculous.
"We've launched an invasion! A thousand tanks, hundreds of bombs, five divisions!"
"Oh, but Prime Minister, you forgot to sign this piece of paper!"
"Damn. Well, better sound the retreat, I suppose."
Legality is either international or national. Internationally, it means getting approval (or at least neutrality) from Russia and China. Nationally, it rests in the hands of the PM. Idiots like Corbyn believe giving Russia a veto over foreign policy is a good idea. Which leaves us with the national picture, and such matters are for the Government/PM to determine.
I commented yesterday I don't know what an illegal war actually means, in the manner it is usually used, in an international sense. Nations do terrible things and claim no breach of international all the time, and UN approval surely cannot be the only measure.
I can see the phrase used in the national sense, as you point out - it's a question of who has the legal authority to make the decision. If the authority is the legislatures, then it woukd be illegal to not consult them. If not, then it it is legal.
And I don't even see the point of this acroon. But if it becomes a meme that it was procedurally wrong to not ask parliament that will be annoying.
Mr. Barnesian, there are specific treaties against the use of certain weapons, including chemical weapons.
The umbrella group of WMD [as they're called] always gets more attention and censure than standard weapons. The Tokyo bombing by the Soviets killed more people than either nuclear strike at the end of WWII, but gets scarcely any attention.
Doing nothing at all is a green light not only for Assad to continue using chemical weapons but to every future dictator who finds himself in trouble to do the same.
Curtis LeMay and his Superfortresses of the USAAF did the Tokyo incendiary bombing in 1945, generally recognised as the worst casualties of any bombing raid, worse than Hiroshima or Dresden.
It seems very odd to illegally bomb Syria to prevent Assad illegally using chemical weapons. More odd still that she should use Salisbury as a pretext. Surely she should be bombing Moscow? If international law counts for nothing then it's now a free for all and that includes Assad.
As I understand it the legality of the allies action comes under the OPCW treaty
I've swung round to @JosiasJessop's view on denying the denizens of mountain caves sustenance.
When the only source is an unnamed lawyer on an unidentified radio programme parroting a line originating from the Kremlin - they really are remarkable for their lack of self-awareness, aren't they? - and making a false moral equivalence, there seems little point in engaging.
Shame, because on other topics he's an interesting poster.
As it happens I heard Trumps announcement live in the early hours and have listened ever since.
The legality issue was addressed during the early hours and that tge action is permissable under the OPCW treaty.
The Pentagon press conference made specific reference to the likelihood that there would be an avalanche of dissemination and fake news
Mr. Barnesian, there are specific treaties against the use of certain weapons, including chemical weapons.
The umbrella group of WMD [as they're called] always gets more attention and censure than standard weapons. The Tokyo bombing by the Soviets killed more people than either nuclear strike at the end of WWII, but gets scarcely any attention.
Doing nothing at all is a green light not only for Assad to continue using chemical weapons but to every future dictator who finds himself in trouble to do the same.
So if we deter, for example, the use of chlorine to clear underground bunkers then "every future dictator who finds himself in trouble" will instead use massive bombardment including barrel bombs on hospitals etc. Which is worse? I think they are equally appalling - perhaps the barrel bombs have the edge.
I have enjoyed being labelled as an extreme leftist today though, the highlight of my morning!
I was called a Corbynistas on here a few months ago, that was fun. As I was called a tory years before I ever voted tory (1 time and counting? ), I might turn into a Corbyn fan in timem
On the PR front, it will be unpopular because we're interfering in a faraway war with no real purpose. If it is seen to do some good and there are no recriminations on us, then we'll see support strengthen for the action.
You'll never get public support for bombing a group of foreigners who aren't directly affecting us.
A depressing but I think correct and concise take on things.
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
I have enjoyed being labelled as an extreme leftist today though, the highlight of my morning!
I was called a Corbynistas on here a few months ago, that was fun. As I was called a tory years before I ever voted tory (1 time and counting? ), I might turn into a Corbyn fan in timem
I’ve been called a far right Tory and a Lib Dem on here.
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.
I agrer with David herdson and Antifrank on this but to be fair there's a practical difficulty here in that they're dealing with Trump, whose policy changes unpredictably depending on mood, who he last talked to and what he last saw on TV. So Tmay may well have found herself defending a completely different operation and rationale for than the one Trump would end on announcing if and when he actually decided to go through with Ooeration Deseet Stormy.
Mr. Barnesian, though this won't get much play, the simple truth may be that banning guns and bombs is impossible, whereas restricting/banning nukes, chemical and biological weapons is at least possible.
Stopping the proliferation of chemical weapons is no bad thing. Not least because terrorists would be more than happy to use any variety of WMD, from chlorine gas to dirty bombs, if they could.
Dr. Foxy, hmm. I did read here (it was quite some time ago) that the Soviets did it. The point, however, stands.
I'm surprised that May isn't going for a retrospective parliamentary vote as I think they would win that quite easily. It would have been far easier for a Tory MP to vote against action in Syria than to censure a Tory Prime Minister for an action that's already been taken.
A bit too obviously political, perhaps, and to what benefit? She wins the vote and... Nothing changes. The arguments over legality, stupid ones it seem, will continue, the public won't care how the decision was made, it will just be a lot of empty talk.
MPs should thank her - if confronted by angry people in support or opposition, they can sidestep it as it wasn't their call.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed to bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
I think I disagree with this. Posters appear to be coalescing around several views:
*) That action needs taking to protect the treaties, amongst other reasons. *) The the treaties should be protected, but this isn't the way to do it. *) That the treaties are worthless and should be ripped up. *) Boo! Hiss! Tories!
Apart from the obvious one, there seems little correlation between the views and the political inclinations. And on the whole the discussions on here have been fairly good.
I fall somewhere between the first two, which is a somewhat uncomfortable position, but it a hard choice with soluti9ns which are only less bad.
That the bombing response was limited, arguably proportionate, and considerable efforts seem to have been made to avoid casualties might be a consequence of the US desiring the participation of its allies. Certainly Trump’s rhetoric prior to the raids suggested something rather more unrestrained and indiscriminate...
Comments
Five years too late but it isn’t your fault that Ed Miliband decided to engage in student politics.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/turn-up-the-internet-dial-to-silence-trolls-and-bores-gfbc0bznr?shareToken=c4072abb3b07ae9c2d19fc1851cb447d
I also see no point in MPs discussing it. They've said it all before, and both sides woukd just grandstand. Vince cable seems downright confused, in one sentence saying the PM must recall parliament to get a mandate and in the next merely that it would be unwise not to (ie it is not a requirement) and while not recalling for a vote would give ammunition to complain, I see no rule that it must be, and no political or public benefit to doing so. The vote might be lost, and even if won it won't protect from personal critique of being involved, and we know for a fact the opposition won't be affected by any split on the matter.
So really parliament being involved now woukd just be a waste of time, no matter whether it backed action or not, and no matter if further action is a good idea or not.
Pretty sure that didn't go to Parliament either.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
Military action is and must remain an executive decision.
NOTE "I've taken this decision"
"We've launched an invasion! A thousand tanks, hundreds of bombs, five divisions!"
"Oh, but Prime Minister, you forgot to sign this piece of paper!"
"Damn. Well, better sound the retreat, I suppose."
Legality is either international or national. Internationally, it means getting approval (or at least neutrality) from Russia and China. Nationally, it rests in the hands of the PM. Idiots like Corbyn believe giving Russia a veto over foreign policy is a good idea. Which leaves us with the national picture, and such matters are for the Government/PM to determine.
Currently the Russians and Syrian government forces are West of the Euphrates*,and should be able to consolidate their control there. Kurds control the East and North, with a significant US and UK support. Personally, I quite like the Kurds as a secular, fairly left wing community with a reasonable record from the region on human rights. Our Turkish NATO ally likes them much less. Will Assad and Turkey tolerate an autonomous Kurdish region? I think not, partly because it is where the Syrian oil is, and partly because Turkey doesn't want a Kurdistan state.
*this not very well known battle happened when an Assad column crossed the river, including some Russian Mercenaries. Der Spiegel seems to have done the best ground level investigation of US troops shooting Russians in recent times:
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/american-fury-the-truth-about-the-russian-deaths-in-syria-a-1196074.html
A further point to remember might be there was always a suspicion Clinton's real motives were to distract from the mysterious stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress...
I'd give certain Scottish golf courses a miss too.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories
Putin makes even Trump look like a model of honesty.
You'll never get public support for bombing a group of foreigners who aren't directly affecting us.
Man unzips fly in Washington and people die in Afghanistan.
You don't like my answer: fair enough. But it's an answer, and it's much better than your non-solution to this mess.
It's worth dwelling on your position: you think the relevant treaties are worthless and essentially want them ripped up. That's truly mad.
Back on planet earth, last time I checked, for all her faults, I’m sure it might've made the papers if May used the RAF to drop chlorine bombs on some British city.
I am really really iffy about our actions but can see both points of view, but Roger, read back what you’re saying. Really??
Blair only asked the Commons because he sought to bind other MPs to his highly dubious decision, and the questionable sources in support of it.
That's assuming this doesn't escalate, of course, and the next election has to be suspended.
Makes me queasy and pause for thought that we might be making a huge mistake.
https://thinkprogress.org/fox-friends-trump-bomb-syria-distract-from-comey-88f5fe915386/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/04/12/two-one-public-oppose-missile-strikes-syria/
We'd need to start targeting Assad's Russian support to drastically weaken his position. Are you seriously suggesting that the west begins targeting Russian equipment, troops and bases with military strikes?
Again, I'm genuinely interested to know your answer.
True.
Happened three days after Clinton admitted an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
I think though that your post does underline that for most people foreign affairs are quite a minor matter, certainly compared to domestic issues.
(As is what a similar zone in northern Syria early in the conflict might, or might not, have achieved.)
PS - within the last 30 years it's politics, not history.
*) That action needs taking to protect the treaties, amongst other reasons.
*) The the treaties should be protected, but this isn't the way to do it.
*) That the treaties are worthless and should be ripped up.
*) Boo! Hiss! Tories!
Apart from the obvious one, there seems little correlation between the views and the political inclinations. And on the whole the discussions on here have been fairly good.
It is concern that a situation so dangerous is being managed by such an incompetent administration.
I happen to think Corbyn's srance is one the areas he is too inflexible on things, I think his reasoning suggests he has an automatic view and that is a bad thing (though automatic support for action is also bad) but sometimes his call be right and sometimes wrong, and given what a mess things are, his stance will have plenty of popularity.
All munitions use chemicals to explode. The effect of the chemicals is either tearing off limbs in an explosion or choking in the case of chlorine, or burning in the case of white phosphorous or napalm, or suffocation in the case of nerve agents. What's the difference?
I suspect in this case it was "just" chlorine which is easy to produce (electrolysis of salt water), denser than air, and therefore an effective way of getting at people in underground shelters rather than massive bombardment from above. Which is worse?
Wars are a filthy business. The civil war in Syria with multiple unsavoury combatants is particularly filthy. The sooner it stops the better. It will stop when Assad has won. We don't want to actively help him to win so the least damaging thing we can do is butt out.
It's Trump's red line that has been crossed (actually Obama's) and May clearly feels she needs to return the favour Trump gave us following Salisbury. Let's hope that the Russian response is also merely virtue signalling like us and that that is the end of it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/9404170/Devon-Malcolms-brutal-display-of-pace-and-power-against-South-Africa-proved-a-wasted-opportunity.html
As you say, there are non-military ones as well, and ones that do not risk all-out war. What we are seeing will just be the 'public' actions.
When the only source is an unnamed lawyer on an unidentified radio programme parroting a line originating from the Kremlin - they really are remarkable for their lack of self-awareness, aren't they? - and making a false moral equivalence, there seems little point in engaging.
Shame, because on other topics he's an interesting poster.
The umbrella group of WMD [as they're called] always gets more attention and censure than standard weapons. The Tokyo bombing by the Soviets killed more people than either nuclear strike at the end of WWII, but gets scarcely any attention.
Doing nothing at all is a green light not only for Assad to continue using chemical weapons but to every future dictator who finds himself in trouble to do the same.
I suspect Mrs May has wasted a lot of political goodwill on doing the right thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/afghanistan.terrorism3
No adverse consequences of that ignominious beginning were there? and no usage of chemical weapons as a result?
Death from above via drones and missiles appears to Western politicians as a politically cheap form of warfare, but when we sow the wind we reap the whirlwind.
There is no legal requirement for a government to gain parliamentary approval for military action. The votes in recent years do not set a precedent. They do not bind any future government to seek such a vote. To pretend otherwise is to show a lack of understanding of our constitutional procedures and powers.
International agreement through the UN is impossible due to Russia and their veto. Wasting time on motions that would fail only allows Assad and Putin to further conceal and obfuscate.
There is surprising unanimity from a wide cross section of the international community. There is also little real doubt that this limited and highly targeted engagement falls squarely within international law.
The only people who appear to think otherwise are Syria, Russia and a man who has acted as an apologist for both regimes.
Failure to act would have been a gross dereliction of moral duty. Chemical weapons cannot be allowed to be used. Taking measured steps to reduce the capability of the Assad regime to use them was a necessary and legal step to take.
Words mean nothing to Assad and Putin. Condemning them is water off a duck's back to them.
Think of all the subtext of a black man, being beaten up by a load of white South Africans, subsequently hammering them into the ground. It would have been the perfect metaphor for dismantling apartheid!
Edit - here is that performance in all its glory:
https://youtu.be/BHzjsjmmZB0
Allan Donald later said 'his rhythm was superb, his line perfect and we made him look awesome.'
If we don't have the resolve for option 2 then option 3 is the inevitable conclusion.
These weapons have been banned, and that is a good thing. Saying that just because other weapons have been banned we should not have a ban on these is odd. If anything, we should be going the other way: ensuring the bans work and attempting to get other agreements to ban other weapons.
It's sad that so many Labour supporters do not see this, especially if they are inn favour of disarmament. For there are only two ways to ensure disarmament: trusted treaties between countries, or surrender.
I can see the phrase used in the national sense, as you point out - it's a question of who has the legal authority to make the decision. If the authority is the legislatures, then it woukd be illegal to not consult them. If not, then it it is legal.
And I don't even see the point of this acroon. But if it becomes a meme that it was procedurally wrong to not ask parliament that will be annoying.
A dangerous and deluded fool with no understanding of international law or how the real world works.
He has long been an apologist for nasty regimes. He has no moral standing to comment. None at all
The legality issue was addressed during the early hours and that tge action is permissable under the OPCW treaty.
The Pentagon press conference made specific reference to the likelihood that there would be an avalanche of dissemination and fake news
He has an open mind and looks forward to her explanation
Stopping the proliferation of chemical weapons is no bad thing. Not least because terrorists would be more than happy to use any variety of WMD, from chlorine gas to dirty bombs, if they could.
Dr. Foxy, hmm. I did read here (it was quite some time ago) that the Soviets did it. The point, however, stands.
MPs should thank her - if confronted by angry people in support or opposition, they can sidestep it as it wasn't their call.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
That the bombing response was limited, arguably proportionate, and considerable efforts seem to have been made to avoid casualties might be a consequence of the US desiring the participation of its allies. Certainly Trump’s rhetoric prior to the raids suggested something rather more unrestrained and indiscriminate...