Aleppo is just horrific. Some of the images and vids on Twitter..... Unspeakable.
I still can't think of anything Europe or America might reasonably have done to prevent it; nonetheless it will go down as Obama's greatest foreign policy failure (and his foreign policy was nothing but failures, pretty much)
Really it's all Ed Milibands fault back in 2013 as well.
How so?
I'm being flippant.
Ah. Though I was unsure at the time, it's very hard to believe that attacking Assad in 2013 wouldn't have turned into a similarly horrible clusterfuck, when only two years later Parliament approved the bombing of the people Assad was fighting. With the luxury of hindsight, the only viable action would have been to enforce a no fly zone before Russia got involved.
In retrospect, the best course of action (though horrible to contemplate, and politically unpalatable even now) might have been to support Assad - crushing the rebellion brutally but quickly.
That would have spared Syria this endless civil war, which, it seems, Assad is going to win anyway. And it would have left no room for ISIS.
Totally unsellable to a liberal western public, naturally. Though I did make this suggestion in a Telegraph blogpost about three years ago....
I think the mood at the time, morality aside, was that Assad was going to lose, and backing a son of a bitch loser is the most unsellable proposition of all. Who could have foreseen that the lisping dentist (edit: sorry Bashar, opthalmist) and rickety old Russia would be the big winners?
Why was there a 'mood' to 'back' anyone? It's not as though there are any spoils - countries that had no involvement in the Iraq war made more money from reconstruction than we did - the US doesn't do thank yous. We should have stayed out and tried to defuse the whole thing diplomatically.
You cannot defuse something diplomatically unless the sides involved are willing to engage or unless you are prepared to enforce a diplomatic route by the deployment of overwhelming power. Neither was the case in Syria.
Mr. Glenn, there was already a fire. Merkel then threw a bucket of oil on it.
The pb consensus's sympathy for the migrants was exhausted well before Angela Merkel entered the fray.
SeanT is, unusually, correct that Britain's response from an early stage was honourable (I had argued for just this response in 2013). It was not, however, enough by itself. And if we weren't going to act, we had to be ready to do our utmost to deal with the human consequences.
The pb consensus just wanted the migrants to go away - though exactly where was never articulated. Far too many on here apparently just wanted the refugees to evaporate.
Isn't that kinda what we did, token bombing in 2016 aside?
No it isn't - because our Government (I'm not for calling it 'we') refused to contemplate the option of Assad's continued tenure. And funded and supported Islamist insurrectionists to try to topple him and install their own regime. It was regime-change or bust. And there was nothing short of a media propaganda campaign to grind the public into accepting more war from the beginning. You can't claim to be operating diplomacy whilst also being a combatant. It is not for a group consisting of France, the US, the GCC, and the UK to decide who is or is not acceptable to rule Syria - it is for Syrians.
I remember feeling in about 2011 the same as I did in 2002, when it was becoming obvious that the Iraq Invasion was going to happen, " I Hope you know what you are getting into, chaps, but I am bloody worried that you don't".
That buffoon Hague was often on the wireless banging on about the Arab Spring, the BBC was full of it, putting up an anti-Assad line. The UK was engaged in stirring up an insurrection in a state which was of no vital interest to us and seemingly without any concern of what it would lead to. So now we have God knows how many dead, the destruction of a country, the rise of ISIL, not to mention the expenditure of billions of pounds of UK taxpayer's money (the RAF have dropped more bombs in Syria and Iraq in 2016 than they did in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined) and for what? So that twat Cameron and his chums could feel the warm glow of encouraging the Arab spring.
F1: everyone else out to at least 15. Still looks like a Bottas/Wehrlein race. Bit irked with myself I only backed Bottas for the title and not the seat. If Mercedes have the strongest car, should still work out. If he wins, that’d also be nice.
Mr. Llama, one of the Arab countries (forget if it's Bahrain, which part-owns McLaren, or Abu Dhabi) has a veto on any new races in the region, which is why Qatar probably won't get one.
Bahrain has a veto on any new races in the Gulf region. It's why their race is at the start of the season and AD at the end (apart from the horrible summer weather in the sandpit!).
Permit another of my layman's rambles pondering the legal minutiae on Brexit.
Regarding the 'Irish' case, which asks whether Article 50 has already been triggered (a leading question to which the answer will surely be 'no') and if not questions the legitimacy of British exclusion from some EU sessions including any sessions by which the 26 are pre-negotiating the Brexit position amongst themselves. My first thought was that it was a nothing amongst the possible legal challenges, it was testing a point of law, but it was not clear to me who would be the complainant and against what. Common sense / natural justice also surely suggested that the EU26 are permitted to, indeed would be foolish not to, prepare a position prior to an anticipated A50 trigger.
However, the case will be decided in European law with perhaps less scope for interpretation, and if the rules do not actually foresee or allow such pre-positioning, I see a line of argument which just might blow the EU approach to Brexit to smithereens.
Effectively, it is that the EU may have already fatally prejudiced any Brexit process by excluding the UK and acting as a 26. Now, given that the UK retains every right to call A50 at any time, anything the EU sets down from any pre-A50 discussion could be ruled prejudicial. Any diminuition at all of UK trade access beyond that which the EU treaties can legally enforce if it had been previously discussed, might also be deemed prejudicial. So, the EU could continue to insist on freedom of movement for total access as a treaty requirement without problem. But were the EU to negotiate any trade restriction whatsoever beyond legal necessity off the back of a prejudiced process, and costs were incurred by EU based companies (including services companies and banking institutions) as a result and every single one of them would be knocking on the EU's door for full recompense.
If this is the case, and I may be talking about a very remote possibility here, not least because the final judgement will likely come from the ECJ, then he British hand in A50 negotiation may have suddenly become stronger than even the most bullish Brexiteer could have ever imagined.
I'd like to know why the Arab world doesn't stump up sufficient aid to support the refugees and rebuilding costs from what is an internal Arab conflict
Possibly because on the whole the Arab countries are allergic to helping each other, in fact they don't really get on. From my experience, the Omani's, for example, loathe the Yemenis (and visa versa), look down on the Egyptians and regard the Kuwaitis as just a sub-tribe of the Iraqis, who they also can't stand. Just about everyone dislikes and mistrusts the Saudis.
I am sure Mr. Sandpit, gent of this parish, has more insight into the Intra-Arab jealousies and bickering.
Well the UAE and Oman are the two sensible places in the region, they have accepted a huge number of worker immigrants (taxi drivers etc) and a few refugees from areas of conflict. They are also supporting red cross/crescent and sending huge amounts of aid to the Syrian camps.
The main day-to-day focus over here is what's going on in Yemen. There's a GCC force helping to keep the government going in Yemen, against considerable insurgence which has cost military lives. It's believed the Yemeni rebels are getting cash and arms from Iran and, so they're not flavour of the month either. ISIL forces have also been picked up in Yemen supporting the rebels.
The agreement of oil producing countries yesterday to cut production (and by extension, raise prices) should help the Saudis out, who have been struggling with containing govt expenditure in the fuel price wars with the USA in recent years. The oil-producing countries in the ME region spend huge amounts of welfare for their local populations in order to ensure that there are no uprisings. Bahrain came very close a few years ago, the others took note.
It's all very complicated, and as others have mentioned there have been wars in the region almost continuously throughout living memory.
Hmmm
UAE, Oman and Jordan? Those wouldn't be the states that the UK has mentored by any chance?
I'd like to know why the Arab world doesn't stump up sufficient aid to support the refugees and rebuilding costs from what is an internal Arab conflict
Aren't Arab countries hosting the vast majority of the refugees? Isn't Lebanon something like 1/5 refugee now?
Permit another of my layman's rambles pondering the legal minutiae on Brexit.
Regarding the 'Irish' case, which asks whether Article 50 has already been triggered (a leading question to which the answer will surely be 'no') and if not questions the legitimacy of British exclusion from some EU sessions including any sessions by which the 26 are pre-negotiating the Brexit position amongst themselves. My first thought was that it was a nothing amongst the possible legal challenges, it was testing a point of law, but it was not clear to me who would be the complainant and against what. Common sense / natural justice also surely suggested that the EU26 are permitted to, indeed would be foolish not to, prepare a position prior to an anticipated A50 trigger.
However, the case will be decided in European law with perhaps less scope for interpretation, and if the rules do not actually foresee or allow such pre-positioning, I see a line of argument which just might blow the EU approach to Brexit to smithereens.
Effectively, it is that the EU may have already fatally prejudiced any Brexit process by excluding the UK and acting as a 26. Now, given that the UK retains every right to call A50 at any time, anything the EU sets down from any pre-A50 discussion could be ruled prejudicial. Any diminuition at all of UK trade access beyond that which the EU treaties can legally enforce if it had been previously discussed, might also be deemed prejudicial. So, the EU could continue to insist on freedom of movement for total access as a treaty requirement without problem. But were the EU to negotiate any trade restriction whatsoever beyond legal necessity off the back of a prejudiced process, and costs were incurred by EU based companies (including services companies and banking institutions) as a result and every single one of them would be knocking on the EU's door for full recompense.
If this is the case, and I may be talking about a very remote possibility here, not least because the final judgement will likely come from the ECJ, then he British hand in A50 negotiation may have suddenly become stronger than even the most bullish Brexiteer could have ever imagined.
I fail to see why anyone who wants to meet can't meet at any time for any reason. In general anything is lawful unless a law says it's not and which law says that the EU27 (not 26) can't meet?
Besides there is a lot of precedent for <28 nations meeting between themselves. It's unusual to have so many but not remotely unusual to have meetings.
Comments
NEW THREAD
SeanT is, unusually, correct that Britain's response from an early stage was honourable (I had argued for just this response in 2013). It was not, however, enough by itself. And if we weren't going to act, we had to be ready to do our utmost to deal with the human consequences.
The pb consensus just wanted the migrants to go away - though exactly where was never articulated. Far too many on here apparently just wanted the refugees to evaporate.
That buffoon Hague was often on the wireless banging on about the Arab Spring, the BBC was full of it, putting up an anti-Assad line. The UK was engaged in stirring up an insurrection in a state which was of no vital interest to us and seemingly without any concern of what it would lead to. So now we have God knows how many dead, the destruction of a country, the rise of ISIL, not to mention the expenditure of billions of pounds of UK taxpayer's money (the RAF have dropped more bombs in Syria and Iraq in 2016 than they did in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined) and for what? So that twat Cameron and his chums could feel the warm glow of encouraging the Arab spring.
Regarding the 'Irish' case, which asks whether Article 50 has already been triggered (a leading question to which the answer will surely be 'no') and if not questions the legitimacy of British exclusion from some EU sessions including any sessions by which the 26 are pre-negotiating the Brexit position amongst themselves. My first thought was that it was a nothing amongst the possible legal challenges, it was testing a point of law, but it was not clear to me who would be the complainant and against what. Common sense / natural justice also surely suggested that the EU26 are permitted to, indeed would be foolish not to, prepare a position prior to an anticipated A50 trigger.
However, the case will be decided in European law with perhaps less scope for interpretation, and if the rules do not actually foresee or allow such pre-positioning, I see a line of argument which just might blow the EU approach to Brexit to smithereens.
Effectively, it is that the EU may have already fatally prejudiced any Brexit process by excluding the UK and acting as a 26. Now, given that the UK retains every right to call A50 at any time, anything the EU sets down from any pre-A50 discussion could be ruled prejudicial. Any diminuition at all of UK trade access beyond that which the EU treaties can legally enforce if it had been previously discussed, might also be deemed prejudicial. So, the EU could continue to insist on freedom of movement for total access as a treaty requirement without problem. But were the EU to negotiate any trade restriction whatsoever beyond legal necessity off the back of a prejudiced process, and costs were incurred by EU based companies (including services companies and banking institutions) as a result and every single one of them would be knocking on the EU's door for full recompense.
If this is the case, and I may be talking about a very remote possibility here, not least because the final judgement will likely come from the ECJ, then he British hand in A50 negotiation may have suddenly become stronger than even the most bullish Brexiteer could have ever imagined.
UAE, Oman and Jordan? Those wouldn't be the states that the UK has mentored by any chance?
Isn't Lebanon something like 1/5 refugee now?
Besides there is a lot of precedent for <28 nations meeting between themselves. It's unusual to have so many but not remotely unusual to have meetings.