Why don't you include Libya as our last serious intervention? The Syrian intervention, if it happens, will probably be much more like Libya than Iraq.
No, Syria won't be like Libya. Libya was a sparsely populated desert state very close to Europe with a clear frontier between Gaddafi and his opponents; his opponents were not easily identifiable as jihadists. Libya did not border Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, three other huge flashpoints (one of them already descending into a new civil war of its own).
Syria is multiracial, multicultural, a complex, quite densely populated country in the middle of the most volatile region on earth. It is NOT Libya.
Moreover, a few missiles will not, I am fairly sure, turn the war in Syria as they did in Libya. If we want to get rid of Assad it will take a SERIOUS intervention. If we are just gonna lob some cruise missiles in a pretendy war to vaguely say we don't like chemical weapons unless we are using them, then... pfft.
I'm gonna do some thrillerwriting. I am suitably riled up. Ciaociao from the Sicilian sunshine!
It will all depend on what the aims of any military intervention are.
However, I still stand by the fact that any military action we take will be much more like the Libyan intervention than the Iraq invasion., both in terms of aims and scale.
Sometimes life doesn't give you a nice option - just two or three equally crappy ones and you have to decide which is the least worst alternative ?
It seems to me we have three crappy options - a) full-scale intervention with soldiers on ground with the aim of toppling Assad and effectively running the country pending its economic political and social reconstruction
b) do nothing - apart from provide such humanitarian assistance as we can for the camps in Iraq, Turkey and Jordan possibly providing UN-monitored "corridors" to allow civilians out of places like Aleppo.
c) airstrikes on identified bases or locations of chemical weapons.
So which is the least worst ?
I note oil has moved higher since this began to develop and as OGH has pointed out, the relationship between fuel prices and voting intention is one worth noting.
As to the Government motion tomorrow - let's see what it is and has to say. A motion emphasising the humanitarian and diplomatic areas would find, I think, general support. I imagine one featuring the UN would be hard to oppose.
If we see £1.50 (£1.60 on the motorways) on the forecourts, Cameron is going to cop all kinds of flack for that.
I'm in the wait and see camp. I don't hold out much hope that we're going to get any kind of plan that's been thought through or that has strategic objectives, but I'm always prepared to be surprised.
Mr. Slackbladder, agreed. That would make it appear that Labour's position is effectively to use the UN as a pretext for not supporting military action. That's probably clever politically, even if it's disingenuous.
Absolutely.
So what is Miliband's position?.. for or against action? Seems to me he's riding both horses again.
Miliband just got Cameron to go to the UN, thats seems to be his position.
A UN with Assad's ally Russia on the security council. If Ed opposes action he should oppose it. If he supports it, he should support it. Demanding something he knows won't happen in terms of Russian support (I am 90% they would VETO) is political cowardice.
There is a danger for Ed if he pushes the absolute necessity of a UN-sanctioned route that he'll be criticised for contracting out his conscience to Vladimir Putin.
The final Rudd v Abbott debate just finished, no killer blows Abbott weaker on the surplus, Rudd on foreign investment (though populist) will add the snap post-debate polls once they emerge
I find it ironic that on this occasion we know that Assad has chemical weapons, and we can be fairly certain that he has used them [recently], yet in 2003 there were former weapons inspectors who went on the record before the war to say that they doubted that Saddam still had any WMD. Yet, because the US/UK cried wolf in 2003 there's now more opposition to intervention when there is more evidence to support it.
This is the poison that Iraq has left in the UK system. It seems like now the UK public is opposing exactly the kind of intervention that it said Iraq wasnt.
And yet our European allies are very much in favour of intervention because they dont have this Iraq poison in their system. If we dont act when a mad dictator uses chemical weapons against his own citizens, we will never act again.
Telling the truth is of the utmost importance importance, and the Blair/Campbell should really have taken alot more care with it. That is the problem, you poison the goodwill of the British public not just for yourself but for others following. Blair should have been straight up and honest about the motives for Iraq. Regime change, not WMDs. He may not have got it through parliament - but that would have been the 650 MPs issue, not his. If there is one thing that must be spoken of matters of war in parliament, it is the Truth.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 8m Govt sources say UN resolution on Syria "always part of the plan" - not response to Miliband call for UN involvement
They'll have been working behind the scenes, so certainly not a reponse to Miliband. Obviously everything depends on what they've been able to get Russia to accept.
"Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days."
It all has the feel of trouble, with each side in Syria having powerful allies. Not quite Sarajevo 1914, but potentially an expansion into a regional war, with Saudis and Turkey vs Iran and Russia.
I really do not like either side, this is one to sit out.
The problem with this scenario is that we could get dragged in anyway as Turkey is a member of NATO
I must say that I'm pretty impressed by the Tories so far re my £25.
Been emailed to say Hi, and contacted by local party chair and invited to a bunch of local events that look fun and interesting. I'm quite tempted to go along.
SeanT - Not at all, I only posted this morning because of the Oz debate, and I posted a graph below clearly showing a declining level of violence over the last few years which makes the point for me
Mr. T, cheers for posting that. I didn't know the US had used chemical weapons in Vietnam, and I'm surprised that hasn't been raised more (not least by the Syrian Government).
It's weedkiller. With regrettable but probably much exaggerated side effects.
I must say that I'm pretty impressed by the Tories so far re my £25.
Been emailed to say Hi, and contacted by local party chair and invited to a bunch of local events that look fun and interesting. I'm quite tempted to go along.
Perhaps we can get the chairman to write a special letter of thanks to Mark Senior for his recruitment effort, complete with a signed photo of Charles Hendry shaking hands with David Cameron.
The Foreign Policy thing I posted (which, no doubt, we'll be hearing more from), even though it raises questions about where orders came from, still blows holes (if accurate) in the "there's insufficient evidence it was chemical, there's insufficient evidence it was Assad" Russian line.
I must say that I'm pretty impressed by the Tories so far re my £25.
Been emailed to say Hi, and contacted by local party chair and invited to a bunch of local events that look fun and interesting. I'm quite tempted to go along.
Perhaps we can get the chairman to write a special letter of thanks to Mark Senior for his recruitment effort, complete with a signed photo of Charles Hendry shaking hands with David Cameron.
Mr. Me, we can't be certain Assad used them. Whilst I think that the likeliest possibility, it's entirely possible that one faction or other of rebels (which include Al-Qaeda, we should remember) have possession of such weapons.
If I'm following Yokel's posts on Syria correctly, then I think we have a pretty decent chance of being certain if pro-Assad forces, specifically those under the command of Assad's brother, used these weapons.
The Foreign Policy thing I posted (which, no doubt, we'll be hearing more from), even though it raises questions about where orders came from, still blows holes (if accurate) in the "there's insufficient evidence it was chemical, there's insufficient evidence it was Assad" Russian line.
Yes, very interesting article. Of course, it's impossible to know how accurate it is, but it makes sense, and would explain why the US were so certain early on. It also seems to point to the possibility that the attack was not ordered by Assad but by some general acting on his own initiative, which would also make some sense.
As I recall, the intervention in Libya came about when the Gaddafi forces were on the cusp of entering Benghazi and it looked as though there would be as terrible humanitarian disaster especially with refugees trying to head to Egypt.
Are we in a similar position in Syria ? I suspect the notion of boatloads of refugees trying to reach Cyprus or lorry-loads coming into the EU from Turkey will exercise some minds.
The Syrian Diaspora might be the biggest consequence of all of this.
On Syria, as painful as it may be, we are surely best off standing aside. I cannot help feeling that if the West gets involved it will only encourage similar chemical attacks as one side or the other seeks to escalate that involvement. And as SeanT says, Syria is right bang in the middle of the ultimate global powder keg. The consequences of involvement, however small it may seem to us, will be huge.
Sometimes life doesn't give you a nice option - just two or three equally crappy ones and you have to decide which is the least worst alternative ?
Stodge, it's not just what you do, but how you do it that counts. This means working through the UN and the ICC, so that the world can see that the action is not taken arbitrarily.
The Foreign Policy thing I posted (which, no doubt, we'll be hearing more from), even though it raises questions about where orders came from, still blows holes (if accurate) in the "there's insufficient evidence it was chemical, there's insufficient evidence it was Assad" Russian line.
Yes, very interesting article. Of course, it's impossible to know how accurate it is, but it makes sense, and would explain why the US were so certain early on. It also seems to point to the possibility that the attack was not ordered by Assad but by some general acting on his own initiative, which would also make some sense.
There's probably more US intel - I read somewhere that it was going to declassify some of it, maybe that's what this was. (I mean, FP didn't find the paperwork in a toilet at the White House!)
SeanT - The overall trend since 2007 has been clear, falls in violence every year. One bad month this year does not alter that trend, you have to look at the whole figures for this year and the next few years to be able to say the trend has reversed. In any case, who knows how many Saddam would have killed since 2007, probably more!
Are we in a similar position in Syria ? I suspect the notion of boatloads of refugees trying to reach Cyprus or lorry-loads coming into the EU from Turkey will exercise some minds
Indeed it will. We need to hurry up with the Better Off Out referendum and secure the UK border.
Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter I think Miliband's plan is to "reluctantly" support bombing Syria - to launch cruise missiles, but write "Sorry" on the nosecones.
The UN is a smokescreen: by 'UN' what is actually meant is Vladimir Putin (China will make disapproving noises but isn't really involved).
Now, if we can get at least grudging acquiescence from Putin, that's a great prize, and greatly reduces the dangers of any particular course of action. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything to so with some great moral authority of the UN.
It makes sense to go to the UN for a number of reasons (not least to get Israel and the Arab League voting on the same side).
No one is dumb enough to argue that Russia can define legality though are they? Surely not Nick Clegg for instance, surely he wouldnt argue that without UN approval intervention is illegal.
The lib dems argued that very point over Iraq didn't they?
SeanT - Not at all, I only posted this morning because of the Oz debate, and I posted a graph below clearly showing a declining level of violence over the last few years which makes the point for me
Then you are a moron.
"28 AUGUST 2013
At least 51 people have been killed and 150 others injured in a co-ordinated wave of bombings that mainly struck Shiite areas in and around Baghdad, Iraqi officials said today.
The attacks are the latest in a relentless wave of killing that has left thousands dead since April, marking the country's worst spate of bloodshed since 2008"
THE WORST SPATE OF BLOODSHED SINCE 2008. Did you read that bit? Can you read? Most of these words are monosyllables, suitable, I would have thought, even for someone with a reading age of 8, like you.
But perhaps you are having difficulty with the longer word "bloodshed"? It means "maiming and killing".
With all due respect Sean, but if anybody has reading issues I suspect it's you - HYUFD was linking to Iraq Body Count figures, not making things up himself. It's probably tactless at this point to say (but I will anyway) that you were more than happy in days gone by to regard IBC figures as definitive when they were giving figures of hundreds of thousands of dead, but now they are showing a strong and consistent multi-year decline apparently only a "moron" would rely on them. Some might say the issue is more with you than them...
Oh, and IBC's figures only go up to 2011. A news story from 2013 doesn't disprove them. The IBC's more recent figures can be found here -
Which does indeed should a spike in recent months - but then most years seem to show a spike in summer months. It's still well down on the peaks of five years ago, and may have more to do with a spillover from Syria anyway.
Unusually, it seems the leftysphere and the rightysphere are of one mind today - this possible move into doing something we will come to regret in Syria is a seriously bad idea and we should leave well alone. A large majority of the country thinks this way. The Middle East is an intractible endless tribal vendetta where our national interest is vanishingly small and the period of our history where we were a global policeman ended a long time ago.
Message to Dave: Your job is to represent the people of this country. Please do it.
Sometimes life doesn't give you a nice option - just two or three equally crappy ones and you have to decide which is the least worst alternative ?
Stodge, it's not just what you do, but how you do it that counts. This means working through the UN and the ICC, so that the world can see that the action is not taken arbitrarily.
Indeed, and we need to see what kind of language is in Cameron's draft resolution later today which will inform, I suspect, the motion going to the Commons tomorrow.
The language will be fascinating to read and interpret. Is the UN Resolution a genuine attempt to bring all States together even if Russia and China abstain rather than veto or is it more about sending an unequivocal message to Assad even if Russia and China veto ?
Yes the Americans did use Agent Orange as a defoliant in Viet Nam,which was not intended as chemical warfare,but the sheer volume of chemicals used was always likely to have other effects. Napalm was also quite close to chemical warfare. The real problem was caused by Dow,and Monsanto,their manufacturing process allowed the formation of a Dioxin,possibly several dioxins. The chemistry and toxicity of dioxins were relatively unknown at the time,never the less the herbicides used were also hazardous. Sevesso opened the eyes of the world,when the explosion also synthesised many dioxins.
On Syria I am in the stay out of it camp,but want to hear more discussion and evidence.
Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter I think Miliband's plan is to "reluctantly" support bombing Syria - to launch cruise missiles, but write "Sorry" on the nosecones.
Why would anyone enthusiastically support getting involved in Syria?
Unusually, it seems the leftysphere and the rightysphere are of one mind today - this possible move into doing something we will come to regret in Syria is a seriously bad idea and we should leave well alone. A large majority of the country thinks this way. The Middle East is an intractible endless tribal vendetta where our national interest is vanishingly small and the period of our history where we were a global policeman ended a long time ago.
Message to Dave: Your job is to represent the people of this country. Please do it.
"perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".
A good reason to take some Wiki entries with a pinch of salt.
Agent Orange was indeed contaminated with tetrachlorodibenzodioxins, of which the 2,3,7,8 chloro isomer is indeed the most toxic.
The effects are many and various but they tend to be chronic rather than acute, so can't really be compared with nerve agents (Chloracne being the main acute effect of dioxins).
Dioxins can produced by heating organic material above 500 degrees (chlorine is only needed in trace amounts). On November 5th, ambient levels in the UK air rise fourfold. There is an extremely erudite (even if I say so myself) 20 page review on dioxins published in 2004 in a scientific journal. Happy to send you a copy.
TCDD has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".[2
The most toxic molecule ever synthesised by man.
Described by who? Seriously. Give us a name - an anonymous quote in a wikipedia article doesn't cut it. (And the the google books link wikipedia provides doesn't give a name either).
And America dropped 20 MILLION gallons of it on Indochina.
More like 240lbs. The rest was basically water, diluting it down to a few parts per million. But don't let being wrong by, oh, SIX ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE get in the way of your moral outrage.
"Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.[1][2] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.[3]"
But that's OK, because "The United States government has dismissed these figures as unreliable"
Because of course the communist government of Vietnam can be absolutely relied upon to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when it comes to who killed who and wouldn't dream of forex claiming that some of the hundreds of thousands of people they killed themselves in the purges following the "liberation" of South Vietnam were killed as a result of Agent Orange in order to shift the blame.
One final thought, are you really saying that countries that have used chemical weapons in the past have no right to say they shouldn't be used now? Isn't it possible in your world for anybody to learn from their mistakes?
How to get donations. I donate to the Dogs Trust via DDebit. Just got this email. I used to donate to the RSPCA until they became an animal rights lobby group
"Every dog needs their dinner and so we are very pleased to announce that from today Pets at Home will be providing £2,000,000 worth of Wainwright’s dog food to us over the next three years. With more than 1,400 dogs in our care at any one time – that’s a lot of dog food I’m sure you’ll agree!
As well as feeding the dogs in our centres, every dog that leaves for their forever home will also get a free 2kg bag of Wainwright’s to take home too. We told you earlier in the year about how the Pets At Home VIP club was helping Dogs Trust and it is as a result of this partnership (and all your purchases) that they are able to do this for us.
This great new initiative will save much-needed funds for Dogs Trust and allow us to invest in caring for more dogs in the coming years. We are incredibly grateful not only to Pets at Home but to you, our loyal supporter, for your continued support and dedication to Dogs Trust.
As I said, death rates in Syria are running at twice the Iraq peak in relative terms, but doing nothing makes people in the West feel better.
So, what you going to do then. About 300 people died in the chemical attacks, so you want to way beyond stopping additional chemical attacks.
So if your aim is to 'reduce the death rate', then 1) What are you going to reduce it to, and 2) How are you going to reduce it.... 3) What is Syria going to look like after you've done it?
That's going way beyond 'a couple of cruise missiles'.
Unusually, it seems the leftysphere and the rightysphere are of one mind today - this possible move into doing something we will come to regret in Syria is a seriously bad idea and we should leave well alone. A large majority of the country thinks this way. The Middle East is an intractible endless tribal vendetta where our national interest is vanishingly small and the period of our history where we were a global policeman ended a long time ago.
Message to Dave: Your job is to represent the people of this country. Please do it.
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
How do the rest of the world view Syria? You never hear of the Norwegians or the Dutch or Australians etc etc wanting to take action in the Middle East. What do they make of the USA taking up the role of World Police Force whilst the UK acts as it PCSO? The Government (and all three major parties) are really in danger of losing the confidence of the electorate if they get the UK involved in another military conflict. I wonder if Lib Dems would take a different position in not in coalition?
Hague's view is that it is not in Britain's interests to do nothing, as it would send the message that anybody can get away with using chemical weapons.
This is the Judge Jefferies' logic, when hanging horse thieves. 'Don't look at it as: a man is hanged for stealing a horse. See at rather that a man is hanged so that horses are not stolen'. This wasn't the view of most of his peer group (ie other judges).
The internal logic of these positions is robust.
But whenever your de facto position is that 'everybody is out of step except me', you are wrong much more often than you think you are.
Miss Plato, my present hound was from the Dogs Trust. An earlier beast came from the RSPCA, and had bloody enormous fleas despite the RSPCA signing off that she was fine (ie had none).
Dave also may want to be careful with the 'chemical weapons is a step too far' angle (seen over at Zerohedge):
Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“Protocol III”) outlawed the use of incendiary devices in war – in 2007. So use of white phosphorus is probably a war crime.
Moreover, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”.
The use of White phosphorus (“WP”) may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”
The U.S. National Safety Council states that “White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.
Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds. Interestingly, it has just come out that the U.S. encouraged Saddam’s use of chemical weapons.
Moreover, the U.S. and Britain have been dropping depleted uranium in virtually every country they fight, which causes severe health problems.
We risk getting into a game of poker - 'I'll see your chemical weapons and raise you one white phosphorus and two depleted uraniums.' Finding some arbitrary line of acceptability for the use of weapons in war is just that - arbitrary. Not a good basis for saying 'we must' do something when in fact do not have to do anything.
Unusually, it seems the leftysphere and the rightysphere are of one mind today - this possible move into doing something we will come to regret in Syria is a seriously bad idea and we should leave well alone. A large majority of the country thinks this way. The Middle East is an intractible endless tribal vendetta where our national interest is vanishingly small and the period of our history where we were a global policeman ended a long time ago.
Message to Dave: Your job is to represent the people of this country. Please do it.
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Edmund Burke, being right for 200+ years.
Of course Burke lost by an absolute landslide at the next election
‘The launch and both recoveries were textbook,’ Mr Akerman told The Independent.
‘There was little wind at the launch site, and both payloads landed in fields within 100-200 metres of a road.
‘The only issue really was that as Babbage was descending we lost 3G as my SIM card ran out of credit! Fortunately we managed to add a top-up before we lost contact with Babbage.’
The toy’s flight was recorded by a camera attached to its shoulder which managed to catch striking images and video.
As I said, death rates in Syria are running at twice the Iraq peak in relative terms, but doing nothing makes people in the West feel better.
The killing rate in Rwanda dwarfs anything else, 10% of the population killed in three months, or 30,000 Iraqis killed every single day to match it. But never mind eh, standing and watching feels nicer.
Yes the Americans did use Agent Orange as a defoliant in Viet Nam,which was not intended as chemical warfare,but the sheer volume of chemicals used was always likely to have other effects. Napalm was also quite close to chemical warfare. The real problem was caused by Dow,and Monsanto,their manufacturing process allowed the formation of a Dioxin,possibly several dioxins. The chemistry and toxicity of dioxins were relatively unknown at the time,never the less the herbicides used were also hazardous. Sevesso opened the eyes of the world,when the explosion also synthesised many dioxins.
On Syria I am in the stay out of it camp,but want to hear more discussion and evidence.
Leaving aside the issue of Agent Orange and its use in Vietnam, there are some concerns about the use of more general weedkillers and agricultural spraying around homes.
I'm not expert enough to say whether these concerns are valid or not.
As I said, death rates in Syria are running at twice the Iraq peak in relative terms, but doing nothing makes people in the West feel better.
The killing rate in Rwanda dwarfs anything else, 10% of the population killed in three months, or 30,000 Iraqis killed every single day to match it. But never mind eh, standing and watching feels nicer.
I'm in support of limited air strikes.
Do you think that limited air strikes will
1) Stop the killing 2) Topple Assad 3) Make Syria safer..
When it comes to western intervention, what is "success" in Syria? The fall of Assad with just one slightly injured dinner lady in Damascus, and his replacement by Norway's social democrats?
As I understand the current plan as stated is for a strike that costs Assad more than the benefit he got from using chemical weapons, so presumably it would be a success if he stopped using chemical weapons.
I'm not sure what happens if the other side uses chemical weapons, as they may have already done. Presumably Obama would have to bomb them as well.
How do the rest of the world view Syria? You never hear of the Norwegians or the Dutch or Australians etc etc wanting to take action in the Middle East. What do they make of the USA taking up the role of World Police Force whilst the UK acts as it PCSO?
Ignorance is not really an excuse to spout such nonsense in the age of Google:
Kevin Rudd pushes for action on Syria after the apparent use of chemical weapons
“The use of chemical weapons constitutes a war crime, irrespective of who has used the illegal weapons. There must be consequences for those responsible for this." [said Norway's Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide.]
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said on Friday the government has agreed to send two Patriot missile systems to reinforce Turkey's air defenses and calm its fears of coming under missile attack, possibly with chemical weapons, from Syria
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Edmund Burke, being right for 200+ years.
An excellent quote. 200 years ago I might have trusted the judgment of politicians vs that of the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Today, post Blair? On yer bike. Most politicians are career self servers, SPADS and geeks with a lamentably low amount of real world experience and common sense. It is a tragedy. Dave's view here is not more relevant to me than my own.
Miss Plato, my present hound was from the Dogs Trust. An earlier beast came from the RSPCA, and had bloody enormous fleas despite the RSPCA signing off that she was fine (ie had none).
I've taken in 6 cats from the RSPCA in the past and never again. I give my money to the Dogs' Trust and Retired Greyhounds who are actually bothered about rehoming. I've taken in 4 greyhounds from them who were difficult cases. I never felt I was unworthy or not their sort. The RSPCA is totally different to the charity it was in the 90s.
Had them as a client back then and it was staffed at HQ in a donated country house with little IT and lots of old paint - now its a massive shiny glass thing - who'd have guessed all those old cat ladies would have their legacies spent on that instead.
A good call but my favourite is the Tetanus toxin. In any case, the most dangerous substances are the "natural ones". Evolution beats any chemist.
I used to work for a Swiss pharmaceutical company whose subsidiary had an unfortunate accident in the 1970s with dioxins (the start of a long interest in the subject).
Still as Paracelsus said ... "the dose makes the poison." Cyanide is toxic but you can take a lower dose daily for months with no ill effects. For others, it's all about the chronic dose.
norman smith @BBCNormanS As Clegg arrives for security council I shout at him "Are we going to attack Iraq ...er ... I mean Syria ?!!l " Freudian slip.
As I said, death rates in Syria are running at twice the Iraq peak in relative terms, but doing nothing makes people in the West feel better.
The killing rate in Rwanda dwarfs anything else, 10% of the population killed in three months, or 30,000 Iraqis killed every single day to match it. But never mind eh, standing and watching feels nicer.
I'm in support of limited air strikes.
Do you think that limited air strikes will
1) Stop the killing 2) Topple Assad 3) Make Syria safer..
I have severe doubts over all 3.
Nothing will stop 1, but a reduction is prefferable. On point 3 if chemical weapons are put out of action, then Syria is safER - yes. For point 2, Assad's position is weakened to a small degree.
When it comes to western intervention, what is "success" in Syria? The fall of Assad with just one slightly injured dinner lady in Damascus, and his replacement by Norway's social democrats?
As I understand the current plan as stated is for a strike that costs Assad more than the benefit he got from using chemical weapons, so presumably it would be a success if he stopped using chemical weapons.
I'm not sure what happens if the other side uses chemical weapons, as they may have already done. Presumably Obama would have to bomb them as well.
If that's the case, then that's pretty weaksauce. Not enough for Assad to really lose too much sleep over, and certainly not enough for him to feel threatened.
Doing nothing in Syria makes this person in the West feel awful and impotent, but doing something looks like an even worse option. There are plenty of folk in the Middle East who would actively welcome western involvement in Syria and would then seek to escalate it. If one chemical attack elicits a response, why not another one? And then another one after that? And all the time we get increasingly dragged into a war in which none of the sides looks remotely attractive. This is not Yugoslavia. This is not Rwanda. In both cases we did stand by shamefully and horrifically when we could have acted with few onward consequences (and, thank God, finally did in the former case). Instead, Syria is bang on the most dangerous geo-political fault line on earth. I imagine Iran, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and their fellow travellers are willing us to get involved. We should not answer their prayers, however painful that may be.
Another day, another Labour percentage in the bracket, although this time at the top end. I assume Labour must hope the other parties keep to the current theme, as it is have such little effect on their percentage. It is now just under 96% of all polls, using all polling organisations, that have had Labour between 36% and 40% since August 2010.
Unusually, it seems the leftysphere and the rightysphere are of one mind today - this possible move into doing something we will come to regret in Syria is a seriously bad idea and we should leave well alone. A large majority of the country thinks this way. The Middle East is an intractible endless tribal vendetta where our national interest is vanishingly small and the period of our history where we were a global policeman ended a long time ago.
Message to Dave: Your job is to represent the people of this country. Please do it.
No it's not; it's to represent the interests of the country and its population. On this occasion, I tend to think that the two - the views of the people and the interests of the country - are in harmony, but they're not always.
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Edmund Burke, being right for 200+ years.
An excellent quote. 200 years ago I might have trusted the judgment of politicians vs that of the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Today, post Blair? On yer bike. Most politicians are career self servers, SPADS and geeks with a lamentably low amount of real world experience and common sense. It is a tragedy. Dave's view here is not more relevant to me than my own.
200 years ago, the standard of the average MP was probably a good deal lower than that of today. On the other hand, the standard of the best 10% was probably higher.
By attacking the Syrian regime, the US and UK will be helping both the Syrian Al Qaeda opposition and Israel - very even handed but not doing anything to stop the civil war.
Agence France-Presse @AFP 6m #BREAKING US rules out unilateral military action against Syria: official
That could be the end of that....
If Britain is involved is it still 'uni'lateral - because strictly it is not then unilateral. Though perhaps we are regarded so close geopolitically that it is still unilateral ?
Yes the Americans did use Agent Orange as a defoliant in Viet Nam,which was not intended as chemical warfare,but the sheer volume of chemicals used was always likely to have other effects. Napalm was also quite close to chemical warfare. The real problem was caused by Dow,and Monsanto,their manufacturing process allowed the formation of a Dioxin,possibly several dioxins. The chemistry and toxicity of dioxins were relatively unknown at the time,never the less the herbicides used were also hazardous. Sevesso opened the eyes of the world,when the explosion also synthesised many dioxins.
On Syria I am in the stay out of it camp,but want to hear more discussion and evidence.
Leaving aside the issue of Agent Orange and its use in Vietnam, there are some concerns about the use of more general weedkillers and agricultural spraying around homes.
I'm not expert enough to say whether these concerns are valid or not.
Any weedkillers/herbicides if they have chlorine in their structure,can indeed be dangerous.If you burn dead vegetation contaminated with a chlorinated product you can synthesise Dioxins. Smokers can also find additional ways to kill themselves if they smoke near chlorinated dry cleaning fluids,they can synthesise dioxins,and phosgene with the burning tobacco.
Dioxins,by the way are a naturally occuring chemical,produced in huge quantities by volcanoes. There is to my knowledge no technical or practical use for dioxins,they are not manufactured deliberately,only for technical research,calibrating detection equipment etc.
How do the rest of the world view Syria? You never hear of the Norwegians or the Dutch or Australians etc etc wanting to take action in the Middle East. What do they make of the USA taking up the role of World Police Force whilst the UK acts as it PCSO? The Government (and all three major parties) are really in danger of losing the confidence of the electorate if they get the UK involved in another military conflict. I wonder if Lib Dems would take a different position in not in coalition?
Your point about representing interests rather than views I accept entirely. The people's views on Syria are clear cut. Our interests in Syria are what? Either way Dave is off on a pointless masturbatory fantasy in Syria. And if it is really all about sucking up to the profoundly naive and inept Obama - well that would go beyond shameful into the realm of ridicule.
If we do something rash it will come back to haunt him, his premiership, his party and all of us.
Yes the Americans did use Agent Orange as a defoliant in Viet Nam,which was not intended as chemical warfare,but the sheer volume of chemicals used was always likely to have other effects. Napalm was also quite close to chemical warfare. The real problem was caused by Dow,and Monsanto,their manufacturing process allowed the formation of a Dioxin,possibly several dioxins. The chemistry and toxicity of dioxins were relatively unknown at the time,never the less the herbicides used were also hazardous. Sevesso opened the eyes of the world,when the explosion also synthesised many dioxins.
On Syria I am in the stay out of it camp,but want to hear more discussion and evidence.
Leaving aside the issue of Agent Orange and its use in Vietnam, there are some concerns about the use of more general weedkillers and agricultural spraying around homes.
I'm not expert enough to say whether these concerns are valid or not.
Any weedkillers/herbicides if they have chlorine in their structure,can indeed be dangerous.If you burn dead vegetation contaminated with a chlorinated product you can synthesise Dioxins. Smokers can also find additional ways to kill themselves if they smoke near chlorinated dry cleaning fluids,they can synthesise dioxins,and phosgene with the burning tobacco.
Dioxins,by the way are a naturally occuring chemical,produced in huge quantities by volcanoes. There is to my knowledge no technical or practical use for dioxins,they are not manufactured deliberately,only for technical research,calibrating detection equipment etc.
Thanks for that.
People forget how many people die due to smoke inhalation from open fires each year - it might be up to two million.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that pretty much everything we come in contact with is fatal in one way or another. It's almost as if the modern world is trying to kill us ...
Agence France-Presse @AFP 6m #BREAKING US rules out unilateral military action against Syria: official
That could be the end of that....
If Britain is involved is it still 'uni'lateral - because strictly it is not then unilateral. Though perhaps we are regarded so close geopolitically that it is still unilateral ?
Far from it Slackbladder, I think, because it implies they are confident of international suport - either a wide coalition (more than just the UK) or UN resolution.
By attacking the Syrian regime, the US and UK will be helping both the Syrian Al Qaeda opposition and Israel - very even handed but not doing anything to stop the civil war.
Alternatively by not intervening earlier the "West" (&the Arab League) helped Al Queda get a foothold in Syria. Hurd was Abu Hamza's midwife in Bosnia.
So in which case we should be helping Assad, not bombing him
More like 240lbs. The rest was basically water, diluting it down to a few parts per million. But don't let being wrong by, oh, SIX ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE get in the way of your moral outrage.
I nominate this as the most rhapsodically ludicrous comment of pb in 2013.
How much uranium goes into a nuclear bomb? Not a lot, its mostly metal and electrics and fins and, well, bomb, isn't it? There isn't much actual NUCLEAR inside, is there? The NUCLEAR is quite small, so really it's just a bomb with a tiny bit of nasty stuff in the middle, which is why these ALMOST-COMPLETELY-NON NUCLEAR bombs only kill 50-100,000 people when they are dropped, rather than, ooh, UHM, lots more.
By your definition, what America was doing to Vietnam was actually Military Homeopathy.
I regret calling HYUFD a moron now, as you are so much more deserving of the term. Maybe you are a Nuclear Moron.
Um no, Sean. The fact YOU can't do maths doesn't make ME a moron. You claimed the US had dropped 20 million gallons of TCDD on Vietnam - this is so epically ludicrous I'm surprised your BS detector didn't kick in when you typed it ("too good to check" I guess). Hint - if they had dropped that much, we wouldn't be talking about how many casualties there were because the whole of south east Asia would look like the dark side of the moon. You've done enough sex tourism in the area that you should have noticed by now that it doesn't.
There is to my knowledge no technical or practical use for dioxins,they are not manufactured deliberately,only for technical research,calibrating detection equipment etc.
One of my neighbours was involved in planning in Plymouth. There was much consternation locally about a new recycling plant, with the fear that it would produce dioxins into the atmosphere. He gently pointed out that it would take over ten years of constant production to produce as much dioxins as are released every night of the Plymouth International Fireworks festival. (And which I watched this year - very impressive it was too!)
Would it be a good thing if limited air strikes are used to destroy Assad's chemical weapons but the strikes release clouds of dangerous chemicals which then kill thousands of Syrian civilians ?
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Edmund Burke, being right for 200+ years.
An excellent quote. 200 years ago I might have trusted the judgment of politicians vs that of the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Today, post Blair? On yer bike. Most politicians are career self servers, SPADS and geeks with a lamentably low amount of real world experience and common sense. It is a tragedy. Dave's view here is not more relevant to me than my own.
Quite so. I agree with every word you say, and you are perfectly within your rights not to launch weapons at Syria. By the same logic however, your views are not more relevant to Dave than his own. Our MPs are representatives, not delegates - if we don't like the way they represent us and they can't persuade us they were right we have the option of voting them out at the next election. Until then however we're stuck with them and have no right to cry foul if they ignore the opinion polls.
Would it be a good thing if limited air strikes are used to destroy Assad's chemical weapons but the strikes release clouds of dangerous chemicals which then kill thousands of Syrian civilians ?
Mark, my understanding is that no-one is talking about bombing their chemical weapons for this very reason. But that in turn means they are still available to be used, perhaps when other means of inflicting war (aircraft, heavy tanks) have been taken out of play - meaning their further use is perhaps made more likely.
I am agnostic on bombing Syria. I will listen to the debate with interest, but whatever the outcome, it seems to me to be a classic case of 51%/49% political decision making.
Would it be a good thing if limited air strikes are used to destroy Assad's chemical weapons but the strikes release clouds of dangerous chemicals which then kill thousands of Syrian civilians ?
Mark, my understanding is that no-one is talking about bombing their chemical weapons for this very reason. But that in turn means they are still available to be used, perhaps when other means of inflicting war (aircraft, heavy tanks) have been taken out of play - meaning their further use is perhaps made more likely.
I am agnostic on bombing Syria. I will listen to the debate with interest, but whatever the outcome, it seems to me to be a classic case of 51%/49% political decision making.
Well it has been suggested on here in several posts today , Stodge is one I recall .
Incinerators both produce dioxins and destroy them. Overall, they should reduce the dioxin content of the material they burn because by "quenching" the smoke, they prevent the re-formation of dioxins as the smoke cools (dioxins start to be formed above 250 degrees C and are destroyed rapidly above 800 degrees C, but a slow cool allows them to re-form).
You could say they also reduce, dilute and disperse the dioxins.
A slight warning. The values of dioxin content of smoke versus dioxin content of original rubbish were provided by one of the incinerator operators, but they do have lots of sophisticated detectors in the chimney.
I shall indeed be holding fire on all the cruise missiles at my disposal! And Dave will do what Dave will do. He just might like to give it some more thought first.
Or...he could lock himself in the smallest room with a porn mag and some pictures of Tomahawks and a box of tissues until the urge to act was 'released'. And then he could say 'nah - don't feel the need any more'.
Your point about representing interests rather than views I accept entirely. The people's views on Syria are clear cut. Our interests in Syria are what? Either way Dave is off on a pointless masturbatory fantasy in Syria. And if it is really all about sucking up to the profoundly naive and inept Obama - well that would go beyond shameful into the realm of ridicule.
If we do something rash it will come back to haunt him, his premiership, his party and all of us.
I agree and can't see any means of effective action that the international community (or the US, or whoever feels like playing this time), can take where there's a reasonable prospect of improving the situation. To that end, I'm opposed to military intervention for now.
However, I can see the view that permitting regimes to use WMD openly without effective sanction is not a good precedent and may embolden those who authorised the actions into pushing the line too far - e.g. chemical attacks on rebel encampments in Turkey, with civilian casualties - that calls for a greater response in the future.
lol. It is an iron law of pb that when I have made someone look a total arse, then, in desperation, they refer to my winter holidaying habits in southeast Asia.
You're a colourful character. I'm surprised you find references to it to be so awkward. By all means simply edit it down to "tourism in south east Asia" if you prefer - the point was merely you're an eye witness to the fact that the area doesn't look like the dark side of the moon, not perverts can't be trusted.
Tell us again how the fact America carefully DILUTED the dioxin so they could easily spray it over half of Vietnam was an act of humanity.
It wasn't. I was criticising your innumeracy, not defending the Agent Orange. If you don't realise how getting the facts so wildly wrong undermines the case you are supposedly trying to make then I can't help you.
It's interesting, because there is a precedent: I understand some of the Airforce Generals who prepared the Hiroshima attack were keen to drop the concentrated uranium in one go, in a Swan Vesta matchbox, thereby knocking out a small shrew.
Thankfully, more humane counsel prevailed, and it was decided to "dilute" the uranium by encasing it an enormous bomb.
...and you do it again. For critical mass, a ball of uranium would be at least the size of an orange - good luck finding a Swan Vesta box that size. Oh, and it would start undergoing a runaway chain reaction almost immediately - the point of a bomb is to prevent the uranium from going critical and exploding until you want to, not to assist it. apart from all that, good analogy.
Would it be a good thing if limited air strikes are used to destroy Assad's chemical weapons but the strikes release clouds of dangerous chemicals which then kill thousands of Syrian civilians ?
Mark, my understanding is that no-one is talking about bombing their chemical weapons for this very reason. But that in turn means they are still available to be used, perhaps when other means of inflicting war (aircraft, heavy tanks) have been taken out of play - meaning their further use is perhaps made more likely.
I am agnostic on bombing Syria. I will listen to the debate with interest, but whatever the outcome, it seems to me to be a classic case of 51%/49% political decision making.
They may be able to target the precursors, means of production and means of delivery, without hitting any stockpiles. ?Charles's? links from Wiki earlier might give an idea.
I too am undecided on the merits of going in; I just don't think it's as simple a decision as some on here are making out.
At the very least, the international community has to do much more than just tut-tut when chemical weapons are used. I want to see people on trial for the crime under international jurisdiction.
Comments
However, I still stand by the fact that any military action we take will be much more like the Libyan intervention than the Iraq invasion., both in terms of aims and scale.
Enjoy your writing!
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas
Been emailed to say Hi, and contacted by local party chair and invited to a bunch of local events that look fun and interesting. I'm quite tempted to go along.
The Foreign Policy thing I posted (which, no doubt, we'll be hearing more from), even though it raises questions about where orders came from, still blows holes (if accurate) in the "there's insufficient evidence it was chemical, there's insufficient evidence it was Assad" Russian line.
Channel 9 - Rudd 57 Abbott 43
Roy Morgan - Rudd 56 Abbott 23 draw 12 undecided 9
Are we in a similar position in Syria ? I suspect the notion of boatloads of refugees trying to reach Cyprus or lorry-loads coming into the EU from Turkey will exercise some minds.
The Syrian Diaspora might be the biggest consequence of all of this.
I think Miliband's plan is to "reluctantly" support bombing Syria - to launch cruise missiles, but write "Sorry" on the nosecones.
Oh, and IBC's figures only go up to 2011. A news story from 2013 doesn't disprove them. The IBC's more recent figures can be found here -
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Which does indeed should a spike in recent months - but then most years seem to show a spike in summer months. It's still well down on the peaks of five years ago, and may have more to do with a spillover from Syria anyway.
Message to Dave: Your job is to represent the people of this country. Please do it.
The language will be fascinating to read and interpret. Is the UN Resolution a genuine attempt to bring all States together even if Russia and China abstain rather than veto or is it more about sending an unequivocal message to Assad even if Russia and China veto ?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Syria pop ~ 23 million, Iraqi pop ~ 31 million.
One can judge the graphs for oneself.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/u1p66quql3/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-270813-Syria-AM.pdf
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/t6hnxrxntm/YouGov-Sun-Results-130827-Syria.pdf
The real problem was caused by Dow,and Monsanto,their manufacturing process allowed the formation of a Dioxin,possibly several dioxins. The chemistry and toxicity of dioxins were relatively unknown at the time,never the less the herbicides used were also hazardous.
Sevesso opened the eyes of the world,when the explosion also synthesised many dioxins.
On Syria I am in the stay out of it camp,but want to hear more discussion and evidence.
"perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".
A good reason to take some Wiki entries with a pinch of salt.
Agent Orange was indeed contaminated with tetrachlorodibenzodioxins, of which the 2,3,7,8 chloro isomer is indeed the most toxic.
The effects are many and various but they tend to be chronic rather than acute, so can't really be compared with nerve agents (Chloracne being the main acute effect of dioxins).
Dioxins can produced by heating organic material above 500 degrees (chlorine is only needed in trace amounts). On November 5th, ambient levels in the UK air rise fourfold. There is an extremely erudite (even if I say so myself) 20 page review on dioxins published in 2004 in a scientific journal. Happy to send you a copy.
One final thought, are you really saying that countries that have used chemical weapons in the past have no right to say they shouldn't be used now? Isn't it possible in your world for anybody to learn from their mistakes?
"Every dog needs their dinner and so we are very pleased to announce that from today Pets at Home will be providing £2,000,000 worth of Wainwright’s dog food to us over the next three years. With more than 1,400 dogs in our care at any one time – that’s a lot of dog food I’m sure you’ll agree!
As well as feeding the dogs in our centres, every dog that leaves for their forever home will also get a free 2kg bag of Wainwright’s to take home too. We told you earlier in the year about how the Pets At Home VIP club was helping Dogs Trust and it is as a result of this partnership (and all your purchases) that they are able to do this for us.
This great new initiative will save much-needed funds for Dogs Trust and allow us to invest in caring for more dogs in the coming years. We are incredibly grateful not only to Pets at Home but to you, our loyal supporter, for your continued support and dedication to Dogs Trust.
Clarissa Baldwin OBE
CEO of Dogs Trust
So if your aim is to 'reduce the death rate', then
1) What are you going to reduce it to, and
2) How are you going to reduce it....
3) What is Syria going to look like after you've done it?
That's going way beyond 'a couple of cruise missiles'.
Edmund Burke, being right for 200+ years.
This is the Judge Jefferies' logic, when hanging horse thieves. 'Don't look at it as: a man is hanged for stealing a horse. See at rather that a man is hanged so that horses are not stolen'. This wasn't the view of most of his peer group (ie other judges).
The internal logic of these positions is robust.
But whenever your de facto position is that 'everybody is out of step except me', you are wrong much more often than you think you are.
Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“Protocol III”) outlawed the use of incendiary devices in war – in 2007. So use of white phosphorus is probably a war crime.
Moreover, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”.
The use of White phosphorus (“WP”) may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”
The U.S. National Safety Council states that “White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.
Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds. Interestingly, it has just come out that the U.S. encouraged Saddam’s use of chemical weapons.
Moreover, the U.S. and Britain have been dropping depleted uranium in virtually every country they fight, which causes severe health problems.
We risk getting into a game of poker - 'I'll see your chemical weapons and raise you one white phosphorus and two depleted uraniums.' Finding some arbitrary line of acceptability for the use of weapons in war is just that - arbitrary. Not a good basis for saying 'we must' do something when in fact do not have to do anything.
‘The launch and both recoveries were textbook,’ Mr Akerman told The Independent.
‘There was little wind at the launch site, and both payloads landed in fields within 100-200 metres of a road.
‘The only issue really was that as Babbage was descending we lost 3G as my SIM card ran out of credit! Fortunately we managed to add a top-up before we lost contact with Babbage.’
The toy’s flight was recorded by a camera attached to its shoulder which managed to catch striking images and video.
I'm not expert enough to say whether these concerns are valid or not.
1) Stop the killing
2) Topple Assad
3) Make Syria safer..
I have severe doubts over all 3.
I'm not sure what happens if the other side uses chemical weapons, as they may have already done. Presumably Obama would have to bomb them as well.
Kevin Rudd pushes for action on Syria after the apparent use of chemical weapons
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/rudd-pushes-for-action-on-syria/story-fn59nm2j-1226704886178
“The use of chemical weapons constitutes a war crime, irrespective of who has used the illegal weapons. There must be consequences for those responsible for this." [said Norway's Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide.]
http://www.norwaypost.no/index.php/news/latest-news/28907-norway-condemns-attack-on-un-inspectors
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said on Friday the government has agreed to send two Patriot missile systems to reinforce Turkey's air defenses and calm its fears of coming under missile attack, possibly with chemical weapons, from Syria
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-syria-crisis-turkey-dutch-idUSBRE8B60PQ20121207
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Edmund Burke, being right for 200+ years.
An excellent quote. 200 years ago I might have trusted the judgment of politicians vs that of the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Today, post Blair? On yer bike. Most politicians are career self servers, SPADS and geeks with a lamentably low amount of real world experience and common sense. It is a tragedy. Dave's view here is not more relevant to me than my own.
Had them as a client back then and it was staffed at HQ in a donated country house with little IT and lots of old paint - now its a massive shiny glass thing - who'd have guessed all those old cat ladies would have their legacies spent on that instead.
"I think that honour goes to the Botulinum toxin"
A good call but my favourite is the Tetanus toxin. In any case, the most dangerous substances are the "natural ones". Evolution beats any chemist.
I used to work for a Swiss pharmaceutical company whose subsidiary had an unfortunate accident in the 1970s with dioxins (the start of a long interest in the subject).
Still as Paracelsus said ... "the dose makes the poison." Cyanide is toxic but you can take a lower dose daily for months with no ill effects. For others, it's all about the chronic dose.
norman smith @BBCNormanS
As Clegg arrives for security council I shout at him "Are we going to attack Iraq ...er ... I mean Syria ?!!l " Freudian slip.
Has anyone mention Ed is crap today?
Some people want to intervene in Syria to stop Al Qaeda backed people and Hezbollah backed people killing each other.
Really?
I have a better idea… sell ammunition to both sides.
#BREAKING US rules out unilateral military action against Syria: official
That could be the end of that....
Dioxins,by the way are a naturally occuring chemical,produced in huge quantities by volcanoes.
There is to my knowledge no technical or practical use for dioxins,they are not manufactured deliberately,only for technical research,calibrating detection equipment etc.
Only four days old....
Your point about representing interests rather than views I accept entirely. The people's views on Syria are clear cut. Our interests in Syria are what? Either way Dave is off on a pointless masturbatory fantasy in Syria. And if it is really all about sucking up to the profoundly naive and inept Obama - well that would go beyond shameful into the realm of ridicule.
If we do something rash it will come back to haunt him, his premiership, his party and all of us.
People forget how many people die due to smoke inhalation from open fires each year - it might be up to two million.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/home-fires-the-worlds-most-lethal-pollution-2192000.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that pretty much everything we come in contact with is fatal in one way or another. It's almost as if the modern world is trying to kill us ...
Can you not see how insane that is?
I am agnostic on bombing Syria. I will listen to the debate with interest, but whatever the outcome, it seems to me to be a classic case of 51%/49% political decision making.
Military strike on Syria would cause retaliatory attack on Israel, Iran declares http://nyti.ms/1dpgL0N
The insanity continues...
Incinerators both produce dioxins and destroy them. Overall, they should reduce the dioxin content of the material they burn because by "quenching" the smoke, they prevent the re-formation of dioxins as the smoke cools (dioxins start to be formed above 250 degrees C and are destroyed rapidly above 800 degrees C, but a slow cool allows them to re-form).
You could say they also reduce, dilute and disperse the dioxins.
A slight warning. The values of dioxin content of smoke versus dioxin content of original rubbish were provided by one of the incinerator operators, but they do have lots of sophisticated detectors in the chimney.
I shall indeed be holding fire on all the cruise missiles at my disposal! And Dave will do what Dave will do. He just might like to give it some more thought first.
Or...he could lock himself in the smallest room with a porn mag and some pictures of Tomahawks and a box of tissues until the urge to act was 'released'. And then he could say 'nah - don't feel the need any more'.
However, I can see the view that permitting regimes to use WMD openly without effective sanction is not a good precedent and may embolden those who authorised the actions into pushing the line too far - e.g. chemical attacks on rebel encampments in Turkey, with civilian casualties - that calls for a greater response in the future.
I too am undecided on the merits of going in; I just don't think it's as simple a decision as some on here are making out.
At the very least, the international community has to do much more than just tut-tut when chemical weapons are used. I want to see people on trial for the crime under international jurisdiction.