Surely even the Liberal Democrats couldn't make Layla Moran their leader?
Jo Swinson might be a more interesting proposition.
The problem is none of them have safe seats. Cable, Moran and Swinson are all fighting seats regained in 2015. With Lamb surely ruled out, and Carmichael a busted flush, who can commit full-time to the cause?
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.
Yes, you're right - I just assume that May would do things for obvious political gain.
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.
That was covered in the early hours and the answer was no and no risk of contamination
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.
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.
I go back and forth on whether that is, in fact a good thing, but I think eventually we will end up there. One problem might be defining direct immediate threat - I've heard the Americans have very creative lawyers to get around such wording on their end.
Until that time, though, even though I cannot see that this action is a good idea, I will refute those saying it was illegal not to unless the courts agree.
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.
One thing that can be pretty reassured is there will be almost no Tory defections to Corbyn Labour over this, a few the other way maybe
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.
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.
One thing that can be pretty reassured is there will be almost no Tory defections to Corbyn Labour over this, a few the other way maybe
I think I am right in saying precisely one Labour MP has defected to the Tories in the last 95 years. It doesn't seem likely that will change!
Is GDN the worst Eurostar terminal? Seems very poorly designed for, you know, the passengers....
Brussels is pretty appalling.
It's not ideal, and although bunker like, it is at least more than 10m wide and it 28 degrees in April. Have had a great time in Paris at the book fair, but this is a really quite unpleasant end to 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 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.
One thing that can be pretty reassured is there will be almost no Tory defections to Corbyn Labour over this, a few the other way maybe
I think I am right in saying precisely one Labour MP has defected to the Tories in the last 95 years. It doesn't seem likely that will change!
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.
That was covered in the early hours and the answer was no and no risk of contamination
I actually think Yokel was wrong about that, and they would not necessarily burn up. IANAE, but it would depend on the particular agent. Although these facilities are probably not in built-up areas, and the risk will mainly be to anybody left working in the facility. Depending on the agent, decontamination might be a bit of a bi*ch, though.
Some of these weapons are quite hard to weaponise; it isn't just a case of putting them in a normal shell. It's easy to use many of them ineffectively.
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.
I too have been called a PB Tory, I suspect even BJO has!
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?
As a staunch long term Brexiteer you are not miles away from Kippers, I believe you have even voted UKIP
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.
Judging by twitter this morning, most of the Left have no understanding of the british constitution.
Likely that one of the consequences of the Syria action is a push by Labour to have a manifesto commitment on going to war without parliamentary vote.
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.
One thing that can be pretty reassured is there will be almost no Tory defections to Corbyn Labour over this, a few the other way maybe
I think I am right in saying precisely one Labour MP has defected to the Tories in the last 95 years. It doesn't seem likely that will change!
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.
Had Clinton followed that up with tougher action against Bin Laden he may have done more to avoid 9/11
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
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.
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.
One thing that can be pretty reassured is there will be almost no Tory defections to Corbyn Labour over this, a few the other way maybe
I think I am right in saying precisely one Labour MP has defected to the Tories in the last 95 years. It doesn't seem likely that will change!
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.
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.
Judging by twitter this morning, most of the Left have no understanding of the british constitution.
Likely that one of the consequences of the Syria action is a push by Labour to have a manifesto commitment on going to war without parliamentary vote.
Which woukd be a smart reaction. Fine if they call for that commitment. Plenty of tories probably agree with the principle. Not fine to pretend it is already law.
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
"Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace.
This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely.
Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm’s way.
Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump. The Government should do whatever possible to push Russia and the United States to agree to an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account."
Sorry for my language, but: what a fucking moron.
Notice the way he suggests it is really all about Washington, equivocates, and then tries and give the US equal blame with Russia for the chemical weapons incident in the final paragraph? Neither Syria, or al-Assad, is mentioned once in that.
The United States had zero responsibility for the use of the chemical weapons and it, with Britain, had already called for an independent investigation through the UNSC, which Russia vetoed: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2018/321
On another note, bombing facilities has worked in the past. Thee Israeli bombing the Osirak reactor delayed and diverted Saddam's nuclear ambitions. And the same is true for Assad after his reactor was destroyed ten years ago.
Then there's the odd explosion on the North Korean train, and why allegedly the Syrians needed to use lead-lined coffins to take their dead citizens home ...
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.
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.
They don't do T&E on operations as it's too uncontrolled and risky. This is difficult and dangerous enough without throwing more random elements of danger into it. Weapons are only used in accordance with the techniques and practices developed by the SAOEU.
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.
It's a 'fuze' when it's in a bomb for some reason lost to history. It seems unlikely as fuzes have a shelf life and anything with documents in the IWM will have been long since time expired. That's not to say that robbing museum pieces for components has never happened... Particularly when the Shackleton had to limp on into the early 90s after Nimrod AEW3 went Foxtrot Uniform.
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.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
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
"Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace.
This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely.
Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm’s way.
Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump. The Government should do whatever possible to push Russia and the United States to agree to an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account."
Sorry for my language, but: what a fucking moron.
Notice the way he suggests it is really all about Washington, equivocates, and then tries and give the US equal blame with Russia for the chemical weapons incident in the final paragraph? Neither Syria, or al-Assad, is mentioned once in that.
The United States had zero responsibility for the use of the chemical weapons and it, with Britain, had already called for an independent investigation through the UNSC, which Russia vetoed: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2018/321
He is a Grade A wanker, and an idiot.
Can you please clarify? Not quite sure what you think
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.
Had Clinton followed that up with tougher action against Bin Laden he may have done more to avoid 9/11
ISTR he had the opportunity, and he regrets not taking action.
Forget ephemera of cigars and dresses: that was the biggest mistake of Clinton's presidency.
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.
Judging by twitter this morning, most of the Left have no understanding of the british constitution.
Likely that one of the consequences of the Syria action is a push by Labour to have a manifesto commitment on going to war without parliamentary vote.
Which woukd be a smart reaction. Fine if they call for that commitment. Plenty of tories probably agree with the principle. Not fine to pretend it is already law.
Now even journalists are getting in a mess over this:
The problem is none of them have safe seats. Cable, Moran and Swinson are all fighting seats regained in 2015. With Lamb surely ruled out, and Carmichael a busted flush, who can commit full-time to the cause?
Relative safety of seat shouldn't even be a consideration in this. A good leader with a good campaign will increase vote share across the country. A bad leader with a bad campaign will decrease vote share across the country. If we Lib Dems do well it's likely that whoever is leader will see their seat survive the next GE. If we do badly then whoever is leader might not do - but the point is to choose wisely to begin with.
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
"Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace.
This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely.
Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm’s way.
Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump. The Government should do whatever possible to push Russia and the United States to agree to an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account."
Sorry for my language, but: what a fucking moron.
Notice the way he suggests it is really all about Washington, equivocates, and then tries and give the US equal blame with Russia for the chemical weapons incident in the final paragraph? Neither Syria, or al-Assad, is mentioned once in that.
The United States had zero responsibility for the use of the chemical weapons and it, with Britain, had already called for an independent investigation through the UNSC, which Russia vetoed: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2018/321
He is a Grade A wanker, and an idiot.
I think the most overtly political part is about doing whatever possible to get the usa and Russia to agree to an independent investigation. It makes us responsible if they don't both agree. And what if we do do Everything possible and they Don't Agree?
I don't agree with taking action which won't help out of a desire to do something, anything, but some options may be downright impossible, and cannot reasonably be demanded, particularly when they are beyond our control.
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 take your point that nations should agree to ban mass civilian killing weapons where they can. As an aside I find it incomprehensible that NATO does not follow the lead of China and India and commit to No First Use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. In 1982 Russia also pledged NFU but has reversed its stance possibly as a result of the NATO stance.
I welcome the development of smart AI drones aimed at particular players. It spares innocent civilians and acts as a disincentive to "playing". Leaders won't like it though.
The problem is none of them have safe seats. Cable, Moran and Swinson are all fighting seats regained in 2015. With Lamb surely ruled out, and Carmichael a busted flush, who can commit full-time to the cause?
Relative safety of seat shouldn't even be a consideration in this. A good leader with a good campaign will increase vote share across the country. A bad leader with a bad campaign will decrease vote share across the country. If we Lib Dems do well it's likely that whoever is leader will see their seat survive the next GE. If we do badly then whoever is leader might not do - but the point is to choose wisely to begin with.
Do you have any preference between the named options?
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 would add s fifth one because it's what I think, which is that the missile strikes are symbolic because no-one is prepared to take the action necessary to protect the treaties (for possibly good reasons), but nevertheless want to make a statement.
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.
Had Clinton followed that up with tougher action against Bin Laden he may have done more to avoid 9/11
If you read the article that I linked to, the strike in Sudan blew up one of 3 pharmaceutical factories in the Sudan, a completely innocent facility.
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.
Judging by twitter this morning, most of the Left have no understanding of the british constitution.
Likely that one of the consequences of the Syria action is a push by Labour to have a manifesto commitment on going to war without parliamentary vote.
Which woukd be a smart reaction. Fine if they call for that commitment. Plenty of tories probably agree with the principle. Not fine to pretend it is already law.
Now even journalists are getting in a mess over this:
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
Trivial response to a serious article (and I assume you don't suggest that David, a Conservative activist for many years, is on the hard left). I agree with everything he says.
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.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
I don’t think that’s quite right - such chemicals can be extremely effective, if delivered in an ideal manner. One of the reasons for the chemical weapons treaties is that they prevent large scale research into weaponisation / delivery methods.
The ‘novichoks’ reportedly have varying characteristics. The one used in Salisbury was a non volatile substance intended to be persistent for area denial.
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.
Had Clinton followed that up with tougher action against Bin Laden he may have done more to avoid 9/11
If you read the article that I linked to, the strike in Sudan blew up one of 3 pharmaceutical factories in the Sudan, a completely innocent facility.
Makes the point even more there was not tough enough or effective enough action v Al Qaeda pre 9/11
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 take your point that nations should agree to ban mass civilian killing weapons where they can. As an aside I find it incomprehensible that NATO does not follow the lead of China and India and commit to No First Use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. In 1982 Russia also pledged NFU but has reversed its stance possibly as a result of the NATO stance.
I welcome the development of smart AI drones aimed at particular players. It spares innocent civilians and acts as a disincentive to "playing". Leaders won't like it though.
Treaties won't stop terrorists.
Indeed the main reason that chemical weapons fell into disuse is that they are not very militarily useful.
The problems of storage, delivery, and area contamination, as well as the unpredictable effects of wind and weather on dispersal, combined with the need for protective clothing for offensive troops makes them of very limited utility.
Which is why they were hardly used, even in the no holds barred wars of extermination in the middle of the century.
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.
They don't do T&E on operations as it's too uncontrolled and risky. This is difficult and dangerous enough without throwing more random elements of danger into it. Weapons are only used in accordance with the techniques and practices developed by the SAOEU.
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.
It's a 'fuze' when it's in a bomb for some reason lost to history. It seems unlikely as fuzes have a shelf life and anything with documents in the IWM will have been long since time expired. That's not to say that robbing museum pieces for components has never happened... Particularly when the Shackleton had to limp on into the early 90s after Nimrod AEW3 went Foxtrot Uniform.
I've often wondered about the shelf-life of missile weaponry. Is there an element of "use it or lose it" - I'd certainly expect we'd use the oldest stock first in an incident such as this, alongside testing some new kit.
I don't know what this source is, but interesting assertion. The British spy Christopher Steele alleged Cohen was in Prague during the campaign to coordinate hacking of Democratic party servers with Russian agents. Cohen denied he went to Prague but Mueller has evidence that Cohen was in Prague and lied about it, lending credence to a previously uncorroborated allegation.
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.
They don't do T&E on operations as it's too uncontrolled and risky. This is difficult and dangerous enough without throwing more random elements of danger into it. Weapons are only used in accordance with the techniques and practices developed by the SAOEU.
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.
It's a 'fuze' when it's in a bomb for some reason lost to history. It seems unlikely as fuzes have a shelf life and anything with documents in the IWM will have been long since time expired. That's not to say that robbing museum pieces for components has never happened... Particularly when the Shackleton had to limp on into the early 90s after Nimrod AEW3 went Foxtrot Uniform.
I've often wondered about the shelf-life of missile weaponry. Is there an element of "use it or lose it" - I'd certainly expect we'd use the oldest stock first in an incident such as this, alongside testing some new kit.
Nobody is testing "new kit" on operations like this as, in addition to increasing the risk, the controllable conditions to make it a useful test of anything simply don't exist.
Consuming weapons by their expiry date is rarely a problem for UK forces as we have so few war shots (as apposed to training/acquisition rounds) of anything. We did have a slew of AIM-9s that had to be used in the late 90s so great fun was had in the Shar blasting flare packs towed by Mirach drones out of Aberporth.
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 take your point that nations should agree to ban mass civilian killing weapons where they can. As an aside I find it incomprehensible that NATO does not follow the lead of China and India and commit to No First Use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. In 1982 Russia also pledged NFU but has reversed its stance possibly as a result of the NATO stance.
I welcome the development of smart AI drones aimed at particular players. It spares innocent civilians and acts as a disincentive to "playing". Leaders won't like it though...
It’s a nice idea - but such drones would easily be mass produced and more likely to be used against inconvenient civilians....
On the Syrian bombing, one further aspect is in relation to the upcoming talks between the US and North Korea. If NK had any doubt that America was serious before last night....
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
"Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace.
This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely.
Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm’s way.
Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump. The Government should do whatever possible to push Russia and the United States to agree to an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account."
Sorry for my language, but: what a fucking moron.
Notice the way he suggests it is really all about Washington, equivocates, and then tries and give the US equal blame with Russia for the chemical weapons incident in the final paragraph? Neither Syria, or al-Assad, is mentioned once in that.
The United States had zero responsibility for the use of the chemical weapons and it, with Britain, had already called for an independent investigation through the UNSC, which Russia vetoed: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2018/321
He is a Grade A wanker, and an idiot.
I think the most overtly political part is about doing whatever possible to get the usa and Russia to agree to an independent investigation. It makes us responsible if they don't both agree. And what if we do do Everything possible and they Don't Agree?
I don't agree with taking action which won't help out of a desire to do something, anything, but some options may be downright impossible, and cannot reasonably be demanded, particularly when they are beyond our control.
This idea this is a something/anything action to just make a point is a nonsense.
They are very real, limited, targeted and effective strikes at chemical weapons research, production, distribution, storage, and delivery sites, the purpose of which is to severely degrade his ability to deploy them or use them again.
The attacks will make a difference. Of course there's no way to absolutely guarantee no further use without regime change, and a form of UN /international peacekeeping force on the ground, but if it decreases his ability by 60-80%, then it's absolutely worth it.
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
Trivial response to a serious article (and I assume you don't suggest that David, a Conservative activist for many years, is on the hard left). I agree with everything he says.
I'm astonished at what David has written, and unfortunately disagree with quite a lot of it.
I was very surprised (and disappointed) to read it this morning.
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 would add s fifth one because it's what I think, which is that the missile strikes are symbolic because no-one is prepared to take the action necessary to protect the treaties (for possibly good reasons), but nevertheless want to make a statement.
I agree - thought that is surely a subset of the first option ?
One of the arguments in favour of being part of the coalition, is that any action requiring the agreement of France and the UK is likely to be subject to more constraints...
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.
They don't do T&E on operations as it's too uncontrolled and risky. This is difficult and dangerous enough without throwing more random elements of danger into it. Weapons are only used in accordance with the techniques and practices developed by the SAOEU.
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.
It's a 'fuze' when it's in a bomb for some reason lost to history. It seems unlikely as fuzes have a shelf life and anything with documents in the IWM will have been long since time expired. That's not to say that robbing museum pieces for components has never happened... Particularly when the Shackleton had to limp on into the early 90s after Nimrod AEW3 went Foxtrot Uniform.
I've often wondered about the shelf-life of missile weaponry. Is there an element of "use it or lose it" - I'd certainly expect we'd use the oldest stock first in an incident such as this, alongside testing some new kit.
Nobody is testing "new kit" on operations like this as, in addition to increasing the risk, the controllable conditions to make it a useful test of anything simply don't exist.
Consuming weapons by their expiry date is rarely a problem for UK forces as we have so few war shots (as apposed to training/acquisition rounds) of anything. We did have a slew of AIM-9s that had to be used in the late 90s so great fun was had in the Shar blasting flare packs towed by Mirach drones out of Aberporth.
A slightly related but silly anecdote, I once had a student job that involved smashing hundreds of dead neon strip lights into a skip. Me and my mate stood one each end - and had the best light sabre fight ever!
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
Trivial response to a serious article (and I assume you don't suggest that David, a Conservative activist for many years, is on the hard left). I agree with everything he says.
I'm astonished at what David has written, and unfortunately disagree with quite a lot of it.
I was very surprised (and disappointed) to read it this morning.
Why the astonishment ? It is a sensible and civilised article, even if you disagree with its conclusion.
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
Trivial response to a serious article (and I assume you don't suggest that David, a Conservative activist for many years, is on the hard left). I agree with everything he says.
I'm astonished at what David has written, and unfortunately disagree with quite a lot of it.
I was very surprised (and disappointed) to read it this morning.
CR, I'm genuinely surprised to see you so gung ho with this military action. What do think it will achieve?
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.
They don't do T&E on operations as it's too uncontrolled and risky. This is difficult and dangerous enough without throwing more random elements of danger into it. Weapons are only used in accordance with the techniques and practices developed by the SAOEU.
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.
It's a 'fuze' when it's in a bomb for some reason lost to history. It seems unlikely as fuzes have a shelf life and anything with documents in the IWM will have been long since time expired. That's not to say that robbing museum pieces for components has never happened... Particularly when the Shackleton had to limp on into the early 90s after Nimrod AEW3 went Foxtrot Uniform.
Thanks. As for the latter point: I wasn't aware of the difference between 'fuse' and 'fuze', and thought it was just a difference between proper and US English.
However on the former I've been told otherwise. My 'source' worked in that area extensively relatively recently, and was aware of both operations and the particular weapon's development. Is it truly unlikely, or may I have misunderstood what he said (as he wouldn't lie about such things).
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 take your point that nations should agree to ban mass civilian killing weapons where they can. As an aside I find it incomprehensible that NATO does not follow the lead of China and India and commit to No First Use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. In 1982 Russia also pledged NFU but has reversed its stance possibly as a result of the NATO stance.
I welcome the development of smart AI drones aimed at particular players. It spares innocent civilians and acts as a disincentive to "playing". Leaders won't like it though.
Treaties won't stop terrorists.
Last time I looked - admittedly that may have been five years ago - India had refused to sign the NPT.
Pakistan and Israel also have N weapons and haven't signed the NPT ... unless I've been too busy and missed an awful lot of diplomacy and peace-making. By contrast, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and apparently Libya were successfully steered away from N weapons.
Iran is clearly building borderline facilities but *has* signed the NPT which is an odd combination. The other three above aren't in breach of the NPT if they never signed it.
Didn't the Soviet Union have a committment to no first use?
I don’t see why we have to have one extreme or another. It is not do nothing or regime change. If we had supported action in 2013 years and made the price of using chemical weapons higher they would not have been used again more recently. I therefore disagree with David. The 2013 decision was a mistake.
So if not regime change what are we looking to do. There has been some talk of hitting the chemical weapon making facilities. I think that is tokenism. The valuable stuff has gone and it’s not that valuable anyway. One of the horrors of chemical weapons is that they are not hard to make.
For me the price must be paid by those responsible. Destroy the palaces of Assad and any other commanders who were in the chain of command. It would have been better to do this when he was in them but he has run away.
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 take your point that nations should agree to ban mass civilian killing weapons where they can. As an aside I find it incomprehensible that NATO does not follow the lead of China and India and commit to No First Use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. In 1982 Russia also pledged NFU but has reversed its stance possibly as a result of the NATO stance.
I welcome the development of smart AI drones aimed at particular players. It spares innocent civilians and acts as a disincentive to "playing". Leaders won't like it though.
Treaties won't stop terrorists.
Indeed the main reason that chemical weapons fell into disuse is that they are not very militarily useful.
The problems of storage, delivery, and area contamination, as well as the unpredictable effects of wind and weather on dispersal, combined with the need for protective clothing for offensive troops makes them of very limited utility.
Which is why they were hardly used, even in the no holds barred wars of extermination in the middle of the century.
They were used very extensively by the Nazis in the Second World War. They probably accounted for around 15% of total deaths.
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 would add s fifth one because it's what I think, which is that the missile strikes are symbolic because no-one is prepared to take the action necessary to protect the treaties (for possibly good reasons), but nevertheless want to make a statement.
I agree - thought that is surely a subset of the first option ?
One of the arguments in favour of being part of the coalition, is that any action requiring the agreement of France and the UK is likely to be subject to more constraints...
It's different in the claim made for it. Josias' group, I think, believes the action is not just right but absolutely necessary. My view is that it doesn't have much practical effect. If you think action is necessary, this is displacement at best.
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.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
You make an interesting point. It's not obvious why chemical weapons should be singled out. I imagine it dates from a time when warfare involved people shooting with rifles or small cannon and it wasn't considered sporting not to see where your opponent was shooting from. In a time of nuclear weapons making this distinction is clearly preposterous.
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
They did , on what grounds did they call it illegal ? If this is legal . To be honest it seems it is legal for politicians if they agree with it , and illegal if you do not .
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
They did , on what grounds did they call it illegal ? If this is legal . To be honest it seems it is legal for politicians if they agree with it , and illegal if you do not .
I'm looking at it the other way around. Generally I agree with the action, but if there's a precendence for using our armed forces with the presumed disapproval of Parliament and polled disapproval of the public then that is a dangerous thing for our democracy.
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
Trivial response to a serious article (and I assume you don't suggest that David, a Conservative activist for many years, is on the hard left). I agree with everything he says
It was a response to the hard left statement put out by your leader.
And I stand by every word of it. The hard left in this country benefit from living in one of the safest countries in the world because of the hard decisions taken by those whom they dislike. They want to talk about lofty ideals but are protected by the hard nosed pragmatism that the West uses to defend the world against transgressors.
I am very proud of the PM this morning. She took a difficult and likley unpopular decision and did what was right.
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
They did , on what grounds did they call it illegal ? If this is legal . To be honest it seems it is legal for politicians if they agree with it , and illegal if you do not .
I honestly don't remember why it was called illegal exactly. I was at school at the time and everyone was against the war, not much really mattered. I think it was the lack of UN backing. I seem to recall Clegg getting in a bit of trouble for referring to it as illegal when he was filling in at PMQs one time, since he was speaking with his governmental hat on at the time.
Like you I don't see it as a particularly meaningful term when it comes to these sorts of things, as no one seems to agree on what is required for legal action to the same degree we understand our own legal processes. When it comes to the authority of the executive without consulting the executive, I think this one is on solid ground - sure the government though, incorrectly, that it had authority to declare A50, but that was a highly specific and different kettle of fish.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
Trivial response to a serious article (and I assume you don't suggest that David, a Conservative activist for many years, is on the hard left). I agree with everything he says
I am very proud of the PM this morning. She took a difficult and likley unpopular decision and did what was right.
I don't know if it was right, but I think it is correct to say it is likely unpopular, so I hope at least one thing we don't see is the commonly seen lazy assertion that the PM did this to be popular, or distract from some other disaster.
My earlier comment was written before reading the news. The strikes seem quite modest in scale - as DavidL says, hitting a few chemical plants is essentially a token gesture. If that's all, then I don't think it will matter very much either way - we will neither be dragged into a major conflict, nor achieve anything.
Strikes me that the hard left are doing their usual handwringing whilst benefitting from the decisions that grown up politicians are having to make. Difficult to see that hard leftism, since the rejection of revolution, is much else but a means of middle class western guilt assuagion.
Trivial response to a serious article (and I assume you don't suggest that David, a Conservative activist for many years, is on the hard left). I agree with everything he says
I am very proud of the PM this morning. She took a difficult and likley unpopular decision and did what was right.
I don't know if it was right, but I think it is correct to say it is likely unpopular, so I hope at least one thing we don't see is the commonly seen lazy assertion that the PM did this to be popular, or distract from some other disaster.
Indeed, this decision is far from popular. Straw poll of my WhatsApp group is decidedly against military action, and no one in there is a very leftist.
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
They did , on what grounds did they call it illegal ? If this is legal . To be honest it seems it is legal for politicians if they agree with it , and illegal if you do not .
I'm looking at it the other way around. Generally I agree with the action, but if there's a precendence for using our armed forces with the presumed disapproval of Parliament and polled disapproval of the public then that is a dangerous thing for our democracy.
But that power already exists and existed, and has always done so. May taking this decision is not setting a precedent which is dangerous for our democracy, it is standard procedure, she is following plenty of precedent, contrasted against uncommon procedure in some recent cases.
If any party wants to make it a commitment never the take action without the consent of parliament, and set a firm rule for it or establish a convention, that's fine, but there's nothing dangerous to our democracy about having an executive which has the power to do things without consulting the legislature, that's how our system works. Is this something which should be within the power of the executive? That's a more difficult question on which reasonable people can and indeed are disagreeing, but either way May is not establishing a precedent, so I think there is a mote of hysteria about the significance of her not consulting parliament.
And certainly I don't see that the polled approval of the public should be a factor one way or another. I don't blindly trust the government, but you cannot make these kinds of decisions based on polling random people in the street, that strikes me as a terrible basis for making decisions.
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.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
You make an interesting point. It's not obvious why chemical weapons should be singled out. I imagine it dates from a time when warfare involved people shooting with rifles or small cannon and it wasn't considered sporting not to see where your opponent was shooting from. In a time of nuclear weapons making this distinction is clearly preposterous.
Why is it preposterous ? We also have treaties concerning the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any international agreements limiting the development and deployment of means of mass killing are surely things to be in favour of ? And incremental progress is to be preferred to none at all.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
There is a large amount about this strike package that remains unclear. Not least the DoD press conference didn't tally with other reports.
Again, after the missile strike in 2017 reported use of chemical weapons in Syria fell dramatically until around January this year.
I did mention weeks ago that the US Administration was debating action against Syria due to other reports before the Douma incident. The DoD was against and the debate did not get as far as that, debate. The context, however, was there.
But that is enough armchair grappling with weighty issues of war, constitutional authority and international law - it's time to turn off the brain, and watch a Dwayne Johnson movie about giant mutated animals destroying things.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
Another pupil from the Theresa May school of logicical thought
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
From my perspective, that would depend on the exact circumstances. But if you jail someone for a crime, you don't ignore a repeat offence from the same person.
"It's no good locking him up; it didn't work last time."
Comments
Jo Swinson might be a more interesting proposition.
The problem is none of them have safe seats. Cable, Moran and Swinson are all fighting seats regained in 2015. With Lamb surely ruled out, and Carmichael a busted flush, who can commit full-time to the cause?
Until that time, though, even though I cannot see that this action is a good idea, I will refute those saying it was illegal not to unless the courts agree.
https://t.co/XJMRXEUT2F?amp=1
A Conservative Home poll today had Tory members backing strikes by 3 to 1
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/our-survey-party-members-back-war-without-a-commons-vote-by-three-to-one.html
Cannot say I've seen Moran before though.
Some of these weapons are quite hard to weaponise; it isn't just a case of putting them in a normal shell. It's easy to use many of them ineffectively.
Likely that one of the consequences of the Syria action is a push by Labour to have a manifesto commitment on going to war without parliamentary vote.
This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely.
Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm’s way.
Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump. The Government should do whatever possible to push Russia and the United States to agree to an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account."
Sorry for my language, but: what a fucking moron.
Notice the way he suggests it is really all about Washington, equivocates, and then tries and give the US equal blame with Russia for the chemical weapons incident in the final paragraph? Neither Syria, or al-Assad, is mentioned once in that.
The United States had zero responsibility for the use of the chemical weapons and it, with Britain, had already called for an independent investigation through the UNSC, which Russia vetoed: https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2018/321
He is a Grade A wanker, and an idiot.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/its-going-to-be-very-hard-for-trump-to-sabotage-both-the-cohen-investigation-and-the-mueller-probe.html
Then there's the odd explosion on the North Korean train, and why allegedly the Syrians needed to use lead-lined coffins to take their dead citizens home ...
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/985080367332851713?s=20
Forget ephemera of cigars and dresses: that was the biggest mistake of Clinton's presidency.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/985082836414844928
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/985079714376273920
I don't agree with taking action which won't help out of a desire to do something, anything, but some options may be downright impossible, and cannot reasonably be demanded, particularly when they are beyond our control.
I welcome the development of smart AI drones aimed at particular players. It spares innocent civilians and acts as a disincentive to "playing". Leaders won't like it though.
Treaties won't stop terrorists.
No one in the UK knows more about bombing than them
Apparently.
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/985077017963061249
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
One of the reasons for the chemical weapons treaties is that they prevent large scale research into weaponisation / delivery methods.
The ‘novichoks’ reportedly have varying characteristics. The one used in Salisbury was a non volatile substance intended to be persistent for area denial.
The problems of storage, delivery, and area contamination, as well as the unpredictable effects of wind and weather on dispersal, combined with the need for protective clothing for offensive troops makes them of very limited utility.
Which is why they were hardly used, even in the no holds barred wars of extermination in the middle of the century.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html
Consuming weapons by their expiry date is rarely a problem for UK forces as we have so few war shots (as apposed to training/acquisition rounds) of anything. We did have a slew of AIM-9s that had to be used in the late 90s so great fun was had in the Shar blasting flare packs towed by Mirach drones out of Aberporth.
They are very real, limited, targeted and effective strikes at chemical weapons research, production, distribution, storage, and delivery sites, the purpose of which is to severely degrade his ability to deploy them or use them again.
The attacks will make a difference. Of course there's no way to absolutely guarantee no further use without regime change, and a form of UN /international peacekeeping force on the ground, but if it decreases his ability by 60-80%, then it's absolutely worth it.
I was very surprised (and disappointed) to read it this morning.
On that score, there was reportedly much debate by the US administration over the extent of the response. Thankfully Bolton lost the argument... for now.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/another-limited-response-to-syrias-chemical-weapons-will-assad-get-the-message-this-time.html
One of the arguments in favour of being part of the coalition, is that any action requiring the agreement of France and the UK is likely to be subject to more constraints...
However on the former I've been told otherwise. My 'source' worked in that area extensively relatively recently, and was aware of both operations and the particular weapon's development. Is it truly unlikely, or may I have misunderstood what he said (as he wouldn't lie about such things).
Pakistan and Israel also have N weapons and haven't signed the NPT ... unless I've been too busy and missed an awful lot of diplomacy and peace-making. By contrast, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and apparently Libya were successfully steered away from N weapons.
Iran is clearly building borderline facilities but *has* signed the NPT which is an odd combination. The other three above aren't in breach of the NPT if they never signed it.
Didn't the Soviet Union have a committment to no first use?
So if not regime change what are we looking to do. There has been some talk of hitting the chemical weapon making facilities. I think that is tokenism. The valuable stuff has gone and it’s not that valuable anyway. One of the horrors of chemical weapons is that they are not hard to make.
For me the price must be paid by those responsible. Destroy the palaces of Assad and any other commanders who were in the chain of command. It would have been better to do this when he was in them but he has run away.
Just not those of enemy combatants.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/985085186898649088
And I stand by every word of it. The hard left in this country benefit from living in one of the safest countries in the world because of the hard decisions taken by those whom they dislike. They want to talk about lofty ideals but are protected by the hard nosed pragmatism that the West uses to defend the world against transgressors.
I am very proud of the PM this morning. She took a difficult and likley unpopular decision and did what was right.
Like you I don't see it as a particularly meaningful term when it comes to these sorts of things, as no one seems to agree on what is required for legal action to the same degree we understand our own legal processes. When it comes to the authority of the executive without consulting the executive, I think this one is on solid ground - sure the government though, incorrectly, that it had authority to declare A50, but that was a highly specific and different kettle of fish.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
If any party wants to make it a commitment never the take action without the consent of parliament, and set a firm rule for it or establish a convention, that's fine, but there's nothing dangerous to our democracy about having an executive which has the power to do things without consulting the legislature, that's how our system works. Is this something which should be within the power of the executive? That's a more difficult question on which reasonable people can and indeed are disagreeing, but either way May is not establishing a precedent, so I think there is a mote of hysteria about the significance of her not consulting parliament.
And certainly I don't see that the polled approval of the public should be a factor one way or another. I don't blindly trust the government, but you cannot make these kinds of decisions based on polling random people in the street, that strikes me as a terrible basis for making decisions.
Any international agreements limiting the development and deployment of means of mass killing are surely things to be in favour of ? And incremental progress is to be preferred to none at all.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Again, after the missile strike in 2017 reported use of chemical weapons in Syria fell dramatically until around January this year.
I did mention weeks ago that the US Administration was debating action against Syria due to other reports before the Douma incident. The DoD was against and the debate did not get as far as that, debate. The context, however, was there.
Pleasant day all.
"It's no good locking him up; it didn't work last time."