Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open
If you’re a lurker, why not delurk tonight, it certainly is an interesting time in UK politics, with Syria’s use of weapons of, Mass Destruction,
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/28/70-tories-not-convinced-syria-strike
Bearing in mind their current (election winning) position is built on 2010 Lab and Lib Dem voters, they haven't done themselves any harm tonight, to say the least.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. Blair (of article 9) is incorrect. It was the Numidians who aggressively expanded into Carthaginian territory over many years, I believe, with Rome acting as 'arbitrater' but in fact always on the side of Numidia. When Carthage finally stood up for itself Rome declared war (which, at that stage, was like a pack of wolves picking on a puppy).
The Romans demanded such a level of submission that it was they who forced the Carthaginians to war, not the reverse.
And allied to that, how do we make it known that use of chemical and biological weapons will not be tolerated?
oh and Billy Ray Cyrus' daughter
Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).
Well now he can't. The US will almost certainly go ahead without us (our contribution is frankly a lot more political than military) and we will sit and watch. Awkward for our leadership who like to be a part of the Obama team but hey ho.
What we will see all too plainly and uncomfortably is what bit players we are on the world scene. As in Iraq the US will not be too bothered if our UN resolution succeeds or fails. As in Iraq the US will do what they wish and the reservations of those (like me) who are unpersuaded in this country shall make no difference at all to the outcome.
Cameron has made a bit of a fool of himself about this but on balance I agree with antifrank. Labour with their party political stance have done him a favour. A major back bench rebellion on this from his own party would have been a lot more damaging. As Labour play party politics that will become less likely. In the meantime we do not have pointless blood on our hands.
I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning
But in practice, it's now or never.
For one thing, it looks very likely that the UN inspectors will say whether or not chemical weapons were used, but not who used them. That means any such evidence would have to come from the security services of the very countries that want action, and many will not believe it, especially after the Iraq debacle.
Then there are Russian (and to a lesser extent Chinese) desires to be placated to even get it through the UNSC.
And in the meantime, the killing continues.
So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?
edit: or neither
It took years to act over Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons.
It took years to act regarding the Yugoslav civil war atrocities
Problem solved. It's not rocket-science...
I'm afraid I missed the Crassus reference. Not been around too much.
That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.
Bloody messes always happens when the Liberals are in government
I haven't made my mind up about Syria, which is a clusterf*ck of wrong options.
First Do No Harm is always the best motto. No one has yet identified a good course of action and articulated it. I'm open to persuasion, but highly sceptical.
But in party political terms, Ed Miliband's position on Syria is far more dangerous than David Cameron's.
So you wanted to drag us to war, otherwise?
However the now or never is totally risible.
Its ramping up the rhetoric for a quick fix, with no strategy beyond saving Obamas red line.
The resolution could be extended to urge Syria to enter into UN sponsored negotiations with rebel representatives for a ceasefire and political settlement of the Civil War.
Both seem very reasonable in the circumstances and it would be hard for Russia and China to veto the resolutions with the eyes of the world focussed on them in the coming week.
I would say there is a very reasonable chance that by the end of next week all talk of immediate military action will have been abandoned.
@stodge
Well, it's a well-drafted text but then I'd expect nothing less from the Government machine.
The interesting part for me is the connection between the humanitarian crisis and the use of chemical weapons. I find that tenuous inasmuch as the humanitarian crisis existed long before the chemical weapons attack.
I would have liked to have seen more on dealing with the humanitarian crisis and linking military action to the relief of that crisis.
...
The connection between "humanitarian crisis" and use of chemical weapons (a "Mass Atrocity Crime") and "crimes against humanity" are all direct references to the UN law on intervention by the international community in a sovereign state's internal affairs.
Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) both agree on the fact that sovereignty is not absolute. However, the R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centred motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not on the right of states to intervene but on a responsibility to protect populations at risk. In addition, it introduces a new way of looking at the essence of sovereignty, moving away from issues of ‘control’ and emphasising ‘responsibility’ to one’s own citizens and the wider international community.
The language of the motion suggests that the UK will be arguing the legality of intervention in the alternative: firstly under the 'old' humanitarian crisis intervention rules and secondly under the newer 'responsibility to protect' norms.
All about tomorrow's debate sending a message of disapproval to the world....
The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.
If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.
Problem most certainly not solved. If only it was that simple.
Perhaps I should reproduce part of what I wrote this morning:
The risks of going in:
*) We support the wrong side, if there is a 'wrong' or 'right' side any more.
*) We create long-term hatred towards us and risk retribution attacks against us directly. However, inaction could also cause hatred towards us: "why aren't you helping?"
*) We end up killing civilians instead of aiding them.
*) We risk our armed forces.
*) We support and arm groups that are positively hostile towards us.
*) We prolong the conflict (although it's already very prolonged).
The risks of staying out:
*) Other regimes know they can use chemical weapons indiscriminately, both internally and externally.
*) We risk more chemical and conventional attacks inside Syria, by all sides.
*) We risk groups inside Syria using weapons against the camps intra- and extra-Syria, especially Turkey. Many insurgents are believed to be coming through those camps.
*) The conflict develops into a stalemate, continues for longer and kills more non-combatants.
*) Chemical weapons become more of a direct threat against us.
*) Regimes do more research into weapons of mass destruction.
*) Our campaign against North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons becomes much harder, as they will see our threats as toothless.
A diplomatic solution would be ideal, and Russia would be the ideal lever against Assad. But that has not worked for two years so far.
And also: source for the claim that Assad has already all but won the civil war. That's not what others are saying (including, AFAICR Y0kel).
That is why Hague is looking so gutted. The long term strategic implications of this may well be significant. And I say all of this as someone who was completely unconvinced that there was any justification for this at all.
@tim
No point making noises that add up to nothing for two years then try and push everything through in two days, Blair had the balls to drag the USA into Kosovo and had the balls to stop a civil war in Sierra Leone.
Cameron has payed this like he did the boundary changes, at the last moment he realised he didn't have the numbers and couldn't command the support of his backbenchers.
He had to stop the vote because he would've been humiliated by Tory And Lib Dem MPs.
No, tim.
The parliamentary vote is only one piece of a very large jigsaw that Cameron and Hague have to put together. It is one of those dark coloured bits that form the background.
In the foreground are the allies, the US, France and Turkey with the most direct involvement; Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq and the Arab League; Germany and other EU countries; NATO; the EU; the UK Defence Staff and MOD; the Treasury; the FCO; and, of course, Russia and China and other members of the Security Council as well as Iran.
Miliband and his games are really far, far down Cameron's agenda. Dave will be laughing at Ed when chatting with Barack tonight. "Not another little boy like Putin, is he Dave?". "'fraid so, Barry".
As Stark Dawning so wisely points out, Labour activists and spinners running around crying 'Ed's playing a blinder' is but a trifle in context. Might get 5 minutes on Sky News. 10 or 15 minutes on the BBC but it will all be forgotten by midnight.
Cameron shits himself and retreats from the Red Ed line
Celtic qualify for Europe?
So all that is likely to change before Miliband will have to make a decision early next week:
- UN Weapon inspectors will report chemical weapons were used, but not blame either side as it's not part of their mandate.
- The UK will try and fail to get UN Security council approval, which Russia will veto.
Voting against will either force Cameron to strike without parliamentary approval (as is within his remit) or mean the UK sits on the side as the US strikes. Voting for will require Miliband to explain why he changed his mind when nothing has really changed.
In other news, c'mon the Celtic.
As you say, it's a motion which Russia and China can either accept or abstain but it would be hard for them to veto outright. The problem comes IF Assad fails to comply or prevaricates while his tanks and armour continue their assault.
Thank goodness today's opposition isn't as stupid.
Which has got me thinking, if Scotland votes for Independence next year, we need to ban Labour from forming The UK government in 2015.
Because the last time a Labour government was in charge of partitioning a country, hundreds of thousands of people of died because of Labour's ineptness.
I may do a thread on that.
I'll cut Obama some slack because a) the situation is very difficult, b) I never believed Obama was some anti-politics Messiah anyway and c) I believe America is ungovernable unless you conform to the Beltway, but if he commits to a war in the Middle East on Friday I imagine a lot of Americans will be crestfallen.
Yes, sadly, it's already been crossed several times. CW was used in the Yemeni civil war as long ago as the 1960s. The Yanks used Agent Orange. Both sides probably used CW in the Iran-Iraq War. Israel and the US use White Phosphorous...
And I've yet to see any convincing evidence that Assad's government was responsible for this incident.
'Russia's Interfax news agency is reporting that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, has told William Hague that the UN Security Council should not consider a Syria resolution before inspectors report on allegations of chemical weapons.'
Miliband is taking his lead from Assad's puppet masters in the Kremlin.
Not been paying too much attention, but isn't that the way it's meant to work?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10271855/Number-of-foreign-nationals-on-benefits-soars-to-400000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol
And nope, no mention of wedding parties or drones.
A. Is the situation in Syria currently capable of an attractive solution?
B. Is Britain empowered by some kind of mandate to decide what it is?
C. If we believe we are so empowered - by some sort of global mission to promote humanity, perhaps - are we so sure we're right that we're prepare to start killing people to promote our view?
I don 't think we should fix the problem of Syria. It is, primarily, a matter for the Syrians, and the world is not helping to at all by pouring arms, training and now actual potential missile launched to favour the side we marginally less dislike. I'm been here, got the T-shirt, and got it wrong.
* unless they really want a referendum of course.
I was against the now or never line.
It is always the same even going back to Germany in 1914 with atrocities in Belguim.
Why not let the Hizbollah / Iranian side continue to fight with the Al Qaeda / Saudi side ?
We can provide some humanitarian aid while watching assorted unpleasant people kill each other off.
We didn't get involved in the Algerian civil war, we're not getting involved in the upcoming Egyptian civil war, what's so necessary about the Syrian civil war that we need to get involved in it ?
Chemical weapons have been used. Chemical weapons should not be used, and we do not want them being used for a whole host of reasons, not least the indiscriminate mass murder of civilians.
It has added a whole other dimension to the problem, one that Obama's 'red line' talk did nothing to help.
In the meantime, people die.
Assad is winning it, contrary to plan...