One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
And add in
4) Rebel forces include elements that have defected from the Syrian army and we have no idea what skills, equipment and intelligence concerning chemical weapons locations they took with them.
But the principle of acting when proof of international law violations is uncovered? I'm on board.
And which provision of international law has the Syrian Arab Republic contravened, and in any event, who judges what breaches of international law can be punished in principle but the Security Council? This is the rule of strongmen, not the rule of law.
Yes, international law is the rule of strongmen. And we are the strongmen. Thank goodness. As a lawyer I am surprised that this is a surprise or in any way contentious for you.
The world decided, some years ago, that the use of chemical weapons was beyond the pale. Assad seems to have used chemical weapons. Ergo, we, the strongmen, under the banner of international law (which we could as easily construct so as to ban people tucking their shirts into their underpants), are taking action.
The thing I don't get is that everyone is the opposite of gung-ho about this. Everyone is deeply troubled. That is mildly comforting. They are even allowing protesters in Washington for heaven's sake.
But what I don't get is just what the anti-war muppets with their "Hands off Syria" placards actually want.
No - why "as simple as that". Why is it acceptable for a child to be blown to bits by a bomb with nails in it but not acceptable to be suffocated by sarin? Why is it acceptable for people to be publicly beheaded in the most cruel way imaginable and we do nothing but are happy to intervene so that the perpetrators of such acts come to power?
It's not acceptable. That is a completely daft argument.
It is very simple. Since the Geneva Protocol of 1925, mankind has been quite remarkably succesful in outlwawing, almost entirely, the use of chemical weapons to kill even troops, let alone civilians. There are just a handful of exceptions (mainly Saddam Hussein), but broadly speaking this is one compartment of Pandora's box which virtually every country in the world has agreed to keep firmly shut.
That's good, right? Just because we haven't been successful in agreeing to rule out all sorts of other nasty things, is hardly an argument to throw away one of the few really nasty things we have managed to rule out. And chemical weapons are particularly well worth keeping completely banned because they are very dangerous, extremely cheap, and above all are particularly well suited to the mass murder of men, women and children in wars of ethnic cleansing by mad dictators.
The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? The alternative - the use of chemical weapons to kill thousands of children first by Assad, then by other Middle East tyrants, and other tyrants around the world - is surely not something we can contemplate with equanimity.
Your argument is entirely bogus in the context of an ethno-sectarian civil war where acting against Assad also leads to an entirely foreseeable breach of Geneva conventions on a massive scale.
It only makes even the slightest bit of sense if you deliberately exclude the entirely foreseeable consequences of the action you are proposing.
This is why the regime change lobby won't admit the problem of our heart-eating allies on the ground. They know it blows their case out of the water.
They know it. That's why they won;t address it.
That's a lot of words.
Cameron, then Kerry, then Obama made it clear that action would be limited and focused as a response to the use of chemical weapons. That seems sensible.
We're not allying ourselves with AQ or heart-eaters. We are saying to the perpetrator of a violation of international law: stop.
Look at it like a boxing match. They are fighting, fair enough. If one of the competitors started to bite, say, the ear of his opponent, the referee would step in.
Like i said, if regime-changers even partially address the issue of the entirely foreseeable consequences of flattening Assad and allowing our glorious heart-eating allies to run wild over Western Syria then the moral case for doing more than "action would be limited and focused" disappears.
It is very simple. Since the Geneva Protocol of 1925, mankind has been quite remarkably succesful in outlwawing, almost entirely, the use of chemical weapons to kill even troops, let alone civilians.
Given that what is going on in Syria is not warfare within the meaning of the Protocol of 1925, you are talking through your hat.
And Syria is not a signatory to the CW treaty anyway.
The illegality of Syria's use of CW is its definition as a war crime and/or crime against humanity.
OK not "law" but what the UN call a "norm which is grounded in international law".
Sweden is a big empty country. They have the space, The UK hasn't, thanks to Labours ridiculous immmigration policy .. we are already full to bursting...see the schools shortages plus the stress on the NHS and the housing shortage. The simple questions are .. where do we put them, feed them .house them, treat their illnesses and educate them.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
And add in
4) Rebel forces include elements that have defected from the Syrian army and we have no idea what skills, equipment and intelligence concerning chemical weapons locations they took with them.
Exactly and although some of this stuff may be hi-tech some of it is just mustard gas in mortar bombs, technology that is 100 year's old.
Separate thing but no-one is mentioning how quiet the Lib Dems have been. Seems to me the vote going the way it did was the best all-round outcome for the coalition as a whole - show willing but get voted down.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
And add in
4) Rebel forces include elements that have defected from the Syrian army and we have no idea what skills, equipment and intelligence concerning chemical weapons locations they took with them.
The Syrians were known to have five CW facilities two of which were capable of delivering CW armed SCUD missiles.
In December 2012 Russia announced that the number of facilities had been reduced to two in order to protect them from access by rebel factions.
MOSCOW, December 22 (RIA Novosti) - Chemical weapons are under the control of the Syrian government, which has consolidated them in one or two locations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday.
“As of right now… the [Syrian] government is doing all it can to safeguard those weapons,” he said, adding that “we are following all leads concerning chemical weapons.”
The Russian announcement followed reports that western intelligence agencies had noted movement of chemical weapon stocks within Syria.
One area where Russia has co-operated with the international community is in assisting and monitoring the safeguarding of Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities and prevention of unauthorised access to them.
Sweden is a big empty country. They have the space, The UK hasn't, thanks to Labours ridiculous immmigration policy .. we are already full to bursting...see the schools shortages plus the stress on the NHS and the housing shortage. The simple questions are .. where do we put them, feed them .house them, treat their illnesses and educate them.
You have been posting all weekend about Labour`s decision affecting Syrian children blah blah blah.And when the question is whether the UK would be willing to accommodate some of the refugees,you are up guarding your patch and your lifestyle.Bombing Syria is an unknown quantity but accommodating some of the refugees would be a definite help to them.
No, you are still talking in generalisations. You have not been precise at all. You talk of diplomatic and military force without actually setting out what the military force will be, how it will be used and what the likely consequences of its use will be.
It seems to me you do actually understand that just dropping bombs or lobbing missiles at Syria will achieve nothing substantial so we come back to that same question again.
You say something must be done. What must be done? What actual military action would you take that would fulfil the criteria I set out of achieving your deterrent/punishment without making the civil war far worse, killing large numbers of innocent people and eventually leading to a victory for the rebels which, to my mind, is probably close to the very worst outcome we could have?
By the way I do not consider your input boring at all.
Cheers, and I don't find yours boring either.
The problem with not talking in generalisations is that it is hard to move out of them without looking an ass. I am not a military expert, and my knowledge of strategy and tactics are extremely limited. Indeed, the stuff I know is probably naive or false. Therefore I cannot say 'target the Syrian Army's fourth group with 3 ALCM's.' or similar.
But I will try to answer in the best way I can, and probably make myself look more of an ass than usual. Given my stated aim of making the consequences of using chemical weapons greater than the tactical advantages gained, and with my engineer's hat on, I would hesitantly propose the following:
1) Work out what Assad has gained militarily from the use of weapons (i.e. how much material he would have needed to have committed to make the same attack by conventional means). This might be the military force required to clear rebels and the civilian population out of that area of the city. Assign a 'combat value' to it. 2) Double it. 3) Target materials - tanks, planes, artillery, arms bunkers etc - that would be needed for those sorts of attacks, to that 'value' 4) Destroy them in targeted strikes. If we need to take down air defences to do this, they get added onto the totals. 5) Let the international community know your workings on points 1-3, so the strikes can be seen to be proportionate to just the chemical weapons attacks. 6) Let it be known that if there is another chemical attack, point 2 will be triple, not double.
That is probably exceptionally naive, and military bods will be laughing into their helmets. For one thing, equating value would be difficult and arguable, and targets may not be so readily or easily available. But if the effort is seen to have been made, it is a good start. It would also not be a killer blow to Assad's military force, but it would undoubtedly hurt him.
It may also be desirable to skew the targets towards the chemical weapons plants, means of delivery and units believed to be involved in their use.
But as I said in my original posts on this, the rebels need to know that there would be similar severe consequences if they have been found to use chemical weapons. This may not be military strikes: stopping providing equipment and logistics would hurt them a great deal.
Again, apologies if this is laughably naive, but that is one possible way my stated aims could be met without an invasion. There are many more.
Still, the worrying noises coming out of the US point to something far, far, beyond the above ...
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
And add in
4) Rebel forces include elements that have defected from the Syrian army and we have no idea what skills, equipment and intelligence concerning chemical weapons locations they took with them.
The Syrians were known to have five CW facilities two of which were capable of delivering CW armed SCUD missiles.
In December 2012 Russia announced that the number of facilities had been reduced to two in order to protect them from access by rebel factions.
MOSCOW, December 22 (RIA Novosti) - Chemical weapons are under the control of the Syrian government, which has consolidated them in one or two locations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday.
“As of right now… the [Syrian] government is doing all it can to safeguard those weapons,” he said, adding that “we are following all leads concerning chemical weapons.”
The Russian announcement followed reports that western intelligence agencies had noted movement of chemical weapon stocks within Syria.
One area where Russia has co-operated with the international community is in assisting and monitoring the safeguarding of Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities and prevention of unauthorised access to them.
I see that you are quoting Russian sources as authorative . Do you therefore agree with Putin's comment that US allegations of Assad's responsibility for the recent chemical weapons massacre are " utter nonsense " ?
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
'.And when the question is whether the UK would be willing to accommodate some of the refugees,you are up guarding your patch and your lifestyle.Bombing Syria is an unknown quantity but accommodating some of the refugees would be a definite help to them.'
Saudi Arabia & the Gulf states will no doubt be stepping in to help their fellow Muslims, no language ,communication problems,lots of job opportunities and plenty of cash to cover all their needs..
I see that you are quoting Russian sources as authorative . Do you therefore agree with Putin's comment that US allegations of Assad's responsibility for the recent chemical weapons massacre are " utter nonsense " ?
There is nothing in the Reuters report of Putin's statements which conflicts the earlier RIA Novosti report.
Note carefully Putin's use of language:
"Putin said on Saturday it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning its war with rebels"
...
Putin told journalists that if Obama had evidence Assad's forces had the chemical weapons and launched the attack, Washington should present it to the U.N. weapons inspectors and the Security Council.
"I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States," Putin said.
Putin is not claiming that the CW attacks were carried out by rebels. All he is saying is that Assad is stupid and US (and allied) 'proof' should be submitted to the UNSC.
On this basis there isn't a cigarette paper's width between Putin's and our own Milband's position.
''The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? ''
What puzzles me a bit is why Assad did not factor this into his decision to use chemical weapons.
He must have known gas would have been a no-no with the west. Why not take the Russian and Iranian backing and grind the rebels down conventionally? Why add to your list of active enemies hugely for very little gain?
Something still doesn't add up.
Except that if Assad calculated some countries wouldn't take action on chemical weapons he's been proved right as far as Britain is concerned.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Assuming there is an "it" at all and it wasn't a store of chemical weapons in tunnels under Ghouta going off by accident or design.
It may have made no sense from your viewpoint; but that does not necessarily match the Assad regime's viewpoint. I daresay the Hama massacres did not make sense from your viewpoint either, but they happened.
As I have said passim, they may not think in the same way we do. What is logical to use might not be to them, and vice versa.
The Hama massacre is logical and Assad gassing a lot of rebels would be equally logical
*if*
it wasn't crossing a red-line that could get him attacked by the global superpower. That's the part that makes it literally unbelievably stupid.
The point is that he is facing a severe, imminent threat to his regime. Indeed, they are fighting for their survival. People under such immediate threat will not necessarily see potential (not even probable) US, French or British response to the use of chemical weapons as his greatest threat.
Then there are other potential reasons, for instance testing the limits of western resolve, or use by underlings without knowledge of central command.
In his eyes, he may just have been dealing with the most imminent threat first. Deal with that, and then see what he can do about the US and GB later.
SMukesh... Helping the refugees would certainly be good for them.. the best help of course is not to create anymore Can you lay out.. how we accomodate them Treat their illnesses. Feed them, Educate the children. The small country of the UK is already full to bursting point.. Sweden is not. I am not safeguardig my plot..I am trying to make what the UK has more habitable for the ones who already live there. I do not reside in the UK. Smartarse
'.And when the question is whether the UK would be willing to accommodate some of the refugees,you are up guarding your patch and your lifestyle.Bombing Syria is an unknown quantity but accommodating some of the refugees would be a definite help to them.'
Saudi Arabia & the Gulf states will no doubt be stepping in to help their fellow Muslims, no language ,communication problems,lots of job opportunities and plenty of cash to cover all their needs..
That`s very kind of you to think of the cultural needs of the Syrian refugees but you seem to be living in fantasy land.At the moment two million Syrians are refugees,a large proportion living in camps and waiting to face the prospect of snow with winter fast approaching.
So spare us all the faux outrage about Syrian children and admit that the reason you support the bombing is to toe the party line.
SMukesh... Helping the refugees would certainly be good for them.. the best help of course is not to create anymore Can you lay out.. how we accomodate them Treat their illnesses. Feed them, Educate the children. The small country of the UK is already full to bursting point.. Sweden is not. I am not safeguardig my plot..I am trying to make what the UK has more habitable for the ones who already live there. I do not reside in the UK. Smartarse
If your concern is the UK,can you stop your hypocritical postings about Syrian children being destroyed by Labour.You are the chap who supports the bombings,so perhaps you can map out how the bombing is going to save these children`s lives for your party leader certainly didn`t have a clue.
Sweden,Germany and Switzerland are accepting refugees but the UK which wants to bomb Syria won`t.That says a lot.
Still, the worrying noises coming out of the US point to something far, far, beyond the above ...
Kerry has just pleaded with the International Relations Committee of the Senate not to include a "no boots on the ground" restriction in any motion passed.
He explained that it may be necessary to secure proper destruction of CW stocks and facilities to have some boots on the ground.
SMukesh. Your arrogance is really appalling. Please point out any posts of mine where I have advocated bombing Syria.. You will not find any.. so shove your ill informed and offensive remarks where the sun dont shine.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
I don't remember anyone mentioning 'rebels' being gassed, everyone has been talking about civilians. And given the sort of people we are talking about on the rebel side I don't for a minute put it past them doing just that.
As for how they got hold of them there are any number of different ways as we have already covered.
''The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? ''
What puzzles me a bit is why Assad did not factor this into his decision to use chemical weapons.
He must have known gas would have been a no-no with the west. Why not take the Russian and Iranian backing and grind the rebels down conventionally? Why add to your list of active enemies hugely for very little gain?
Something still doesn't add up.
Except that if Assad calculated some countries wouldn't take action on chemical weapons he's been proved right as far as Britain is concerned.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Assuming there is an "it" at all and it wasn't a store of chemical weapons in tunnels under Ghouta going off by accident or design.
It may have made no sense from your viewpoint; but that does not necessarily match the Assad regime's viewpoint. I daresay the Hama massacres did not make sense from your viewpoint either, but they happened.
As I have said passim, they may not think in the same way we do. What is logical to use might not be to them, and vice versa.
The Hama massacre is logical and Assad gassing a lot of rebels would be equally logical
*if*
it wasn't crossing a red-line that could get him attacked by the global superpower. That's the part that makes it literally unbelievably stupid.
The point is that he is facing a severe, imminent threat to his regime. Indeed, they are fighting for their survival. People under such immediate threat will not necessarily see potential (not even probable) US, French or British response to the use of chemical weapons as his greatest threat.
Then there are other potential reasons, for instance testing the limits of western resolve, or use by underlings without knowledge of central command.
In his eyes, he may just have been dealing with the most imminent threat first. Deal with that, and then see what he can do about the US and GB later.
Except he isn't. He may have been at one point but then he got reinforcements from Lebanon (hence why the regime-changers quietly include Lebanon on their attack list). Those reinforcements turned the tide hence the sudden need for an excuse for massive US bombing.
''The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? ''
What puzzles me a bit is why Assad did not factor this into his decision to use chemical weapons.
He must have known gas would have been a no-no with the west. Why not take the Russian and Iranian backing and grind the rebels down conventionally? Why add to your list of active enemies hugely for very little gain?
Something still doesn't add up.
Except that if Assad calculated some countries wouldn't take action on chemical weapons he's been proved right as far as Britain is concerned.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Assuming there is an "it" at all and it wasn't a store of chemical weapons in tunnels under Ghouta going off by accident or design.
It may have made no sense from your viewpoint; but that does not necessarily match the Assad regime's viewpoint. I daresay the Hama massacres did not make sense from your viewpoint either, but they happened.
As I have said passim, they may not think in the same way we do. What is logical to use might not be to them, and vice versa.
The Hama massacre is logical and Assad gassing a lot of rebels would be equally logical
*if*
it wasn't crossing a red-line that could get him attacked by the global superpower. That's the part that makes it literally unbelievably stupid.
The point is that he is facing a severe, imminent threat to his regime. Indeed, they are fighting for their survival. People under such immediate threat will not necessarily see potential (not even probable) US, French or British response to the use of chemical weapons as his greatest threat.
Then there are other potential reasons, for instance testing the limits of western resolve, or use by underlings without knowledge of central command.
In his eyes, he may just have been dealing with the most imminent threat first. Deal with that, and then see what he can do about the US and GB later.
Actually the big problem with that argument is that he wasn't facing an imminent threat. Since Hezbollah got involved the rebels have been suffering continual defeats and it looked like Assad was well on the way top winning the war. He certainly hasn't been fighting for survival in the way he was say, a year ago. Which begs the question why he didn't make such an obvious use of chemical weapons then. Why risk the wrath of the West when you are already winning?
SMukesh. Your arrogance is really appalling. Please point out any posts of mine where I have advocated bombing Syria.. You will not find any.. so shove your ill informed and offensive remarks where the sun dont shine.
Here you are writing post after post supporting military action in Syria and berating Labour for rejecting the Government`s motion `calling for strong humanitarian response including military strikes` against Syria.What did you think military action involves-Sending flowers to Assad?
We seem to be experiencing mission creep already - initially it was to send a message to the Assad regime that the US would not accept the use of chemical weapons, now it is to 'degrade' the regime's ability to fight.
Also, the purpose of the strikes is expressly NOT to facilitate regime change.
Complicating this is the fact that 'the opposition' is not single and uniform, there are several groups, from the Free Syrian Army, the Hezzbollah folks, and Al Qaeda etc.
The Asad regime, repellent though it is, it is at least secular, and most of the opposition is at least as repellent as Assad.
Chemical weapon delivery system is simple - it's basically a truck. Given the time he's had, Assad has now re-deployed them to schools and civilian areas. He has also probably moved his chemical weapons inventory to diverse locations.
Given that this is not intended to bring regime change, and the chemical weapon stocks and delivery system are probably out of reach, what is the problem that this is intended to solve?
What is the mission?
What is the objective?
How will we know when we've achieved it?
What is the next step if we don't?
Will this help bring the warring parties to the negotiating table?
So far, the only argument I've heard is "If we don't people will think we're weak." They already do.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Smukesh.. the motion was a means of forcing the child killer to get to the table The UK is a long way from actually striking at any targets ..all of which would be military ones.. not many civilans hanging around airfields and secret chemical stores. Thanks to Labour we cannot even do that I assume you live in the UK..I look forward to you offering to take a couple of Syrian families in to your home..Well done
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Smukesh.. the motion was a means of forcing the child killer to get to the table The UK is a long way from actually striking at any targets ..all of which would be military ones.. not many civilans hanging around airfields and secret chemical stores. Thanks to Labour we cannot even do that I assume you live in the UK..I look forward to you offering to take a couple of Syrian families in to your home..Well done
The initial plan was to bomb last weekend remember!I would be happy to pay increased taxes for the UK to take in a proportion of refugees especially given it`s stance on Syria.
The reason I oppose the military action is there`s not enough evidence to say it will improve the plight of the Syrian people.The Iraq war is long over but people are still being killed there,so it is better to learn from the mistakes of the past and be wary of military `do good` missions.
'That`s very kind of you to think of the cultural needs of the Syrian refugees but you seem to be living in fantasy land.At the moment two million Syrians are refugees,a large proportion living in camps and waiting to face the prospect of snow with winter fast approaching.'
Any clue as to why expecting Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States to take the lead with the refugee crisis is living in fantasy land? You are obviously ignorant of the fact that in the 60's & 70's these countries accommodated over a million Palestinian refugees after the various conflicts with Israel.
'So spare us all the faux outrage about Syrian children and admit that the reason you support the bombing is to toe the party line.'
Either international law is enforced or it's ignored,not really that complicated.
We seem to be experiencing mission creep already - initially it was to send a message to the Assad regime that the US would not accept the use of chemical weapons, now it is to 'degrade' the regime's ability to fight.
Also, the purpose of the strikes is expressly NOT to facilitate regime change.
Complicating this is the fact that 'the opposition' is not single and uniform, there are several groups, from the Free Syrian Army, the Hezzbollah folks, and Al Qaeda etc.
The Asad regime, repellent though it is, it is at least secular, and most of the opposition is at least as repellent as Assad.
Chemical weapon delivery system is simple - it's basically a truck. Given the time he's had, Assad has now re-deployed them to schools and civilian areas. He has also probably moved his chemical weapons inventory to diverse locations.
Given that this is not intended to bring regime change, and the chemical weapon stocks and delivery system are probably out of reach, what is the problem that this is intended to solve?
What is the mission?
What is the objective?
How will we know when we've achieved it?
What is the next step if we don't?
Will this help bring the warring parties to the negotiating table?
So far, the only argument I've heard is "If we don't people will think we're weak." They already do.
"'degrade' the regime's ability to fight."
"Also, the purpose of the strikes is expressly NOT to facilitate regime change."
"Chemical weapon delivery system is simple - it's basically a truck."
That is the nub of it. The internal logic only has a few options:
1) Symbolic missiles into the desert.
2) Blowing up the chemical weapons stores themselves - not a good idea.
3) Destroying the delivery systems. Now they might be talking about rockets and scuds and hi-tech bond-villain stuff now but if they got the go-ahead they'll be back saying "erm actually he can fire this stuff from mortars and artillery or even stick it on the back of a truck so we'll need to take all of that out too and to do that we'll need to take out all his air-defenses, anti-ship batteries, command and control etc" i.e. flatten the regime i.e. regime change i.e. our glorious heart-eating allies running wild over western Syria.
And Syria is not a signatory to the CW treaty anyway.
The illegality of Syria's use of CW is its definition as a war crime and/or crime against humanity.
OK not "law" but what the UN call a "norm which is grounded in international law".
Syria acceded to the Geneva Protocol in 1968 with a reservation relating to the status of Israel, but has never signed the later Chemical Weapons Convention, and is not bound by its provisions. It has not used chemical weapons in warfare, and has not contravened its obligations under the Protocol of 1925. Both Syria and the United Kingdom are parties to the UN Charter, which specifies that force may only be used in accordance with its provisions. The conditions for the use of force by the United Kingdom against Syria do not exist at the present time. If the United Kingdom uses force against Syria, it would constitute an act of war, and Syria would be entitled to seize British assets and detain British subjects, to sink British vessels, to destroy Her Majesty's Air Bases in Cyprus etc.
The second point is that HMG in the United Kingdom is being fundamentally hypocritical. We hold customary international law to be of no effect within the United Kingdom without statutory incorporation. Regina v Jones et al. [2007] 1 AC 136, at pp. 159-165 per Lord Bingham of Cornhill. In other words, it is the position of HMG that customary international law can be trumped by the laws of sovereign states.
''The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? ''
What puzzles me a bit is why Assad did not factor this into his decision to use chemical weapons.
He must have known gas would have been a no-no with the west. Why not take the Russian and Iranian backing and grind the rebels down conventionally? Why add to your list of active enemies hugely for very little gain?
Something still doesn't add up.
Except that if Assad calculated some countries wouldn't take action on chemical weapons he's been proved right as far as Britain is concerned.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Assuming there is an "it" at all and it wasn't a store of chemical weapons in tunnels under Ghouta going off by accident or design.
It may have made no sense from your viewpoint; but that does not necessarily match the Assad regime's viewpoint. I daresay the Hama massacres did not make sense from your viewpoint either, but they happened.
As I have said passim, they may not think in the same way we do. What is logical to use might not be to them, and vice versa.
The Hama massacre is logical and Assad gassing a lot of rebels would be equally logical
*if*
it wasn't crossing a red-line that could get him attacked by the global superpower. That's the part that makes it literally unbelievably stupid.
The point is that he is facing a severe, imminent threat to his regime. Indeed, they are fighting for their survival. People under such immediate threat will not necessarily see potential (not even probable) US, French or British response to the use of chemical weapons as his greatest threat.
Then there are other potential reasons, for instance testing the limits of western resolve, or use by underlings without knowledge of central command.
In his eyes, he may just have been dealing with the most imminent threat first. Deal with that, and then see what he can do about the US and GB later.
Except he isn't. He may have been at one point but then he got reinforcements from Lebanon (hence why the regime-changers quietly include Lebanon on their attack list). Those reinforcements turned the tide hence the sudden need for an excuse for massive US bombing.
I would call having fighting going on in the outskirts of your capital city a threat. That's where the gas attack occurred, and that's where rebel fighters were.
And Syria is not a signatory to the CW treaty anyway.
The illegality of Syria's use of CW is its definition as a war crime and/or crime against humanity.
OK not "law" but what the UN call a "norm which is grounded in international law".
Syria acceded to the Geneva Protocol in 1968 with a reservation relating to the status of Israel, but has never signed the later Chemical Weapons Convention, and is not bound by its provisions. It has not used chemical weapons in warfare, and has not contravened its obligations under the Protocol of 1925. Both Syria and the United Kingdom are parties to the UN Charter, which specifies that force may only be used in accordance with its provisions. The conditions for the use of force by the United Kingdom against Syria do not exist at the present time. If the United Kingdom uses force against Syria, it would constitute an act of war, and Syria would be entitled to seize British assets and detain British subjects, to sink British vessels, to destroy Her Majesty's Air Bases in Cyprus etc.
The second point is that HMG in the United Kingdom is being fundamentally hypocritical. We hold customary international law to be of no effect within the United Kingdom without statutory incorporation. Regina v Jones et al. [2007] 1 AC 136, at pp. 159-165 per Lord Bingham of Cornhill. In other words, it is the position of HMG that customary international law can be trumped by the laws of sovereign states.
"Syria would be entitled to ... sink British vessels, to destroy Her Majesty's Air Bases in Cyprus"
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Blame the victim?
Seriously?
Cui bono.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
The attack took place in suburbs of Damascus.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Well, the Syrian army was shelling the rebel areas, so when you say "the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling" you are just using some verbal trickery to say "The rebels gassed themselves" to try not to look so utterly idiotic as if you had said the words.
The Saudi story is laughable, and no one except the likes of 9/11 "truthers" believes it. Incidentally, where are you on 9/11 "truth", and Obama's birth certificate? I just want to judge where exactly on the conspiracy spectrum you are...
''The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? ''
What puzzles me a bit is why Assad did not factor this into his decision to use chemical weapons.
He must have known gas would have been a no-no with the west. Why not take the Russian and Iranian backing and grind the rebels down conventionally? Why add to your list of active enemies hugely for very little gain?
Something still doesn't add up.
Except that if Assad calculated some countries wouldn't take action on chemical weapons he's been proved right as far as Britain is concerned.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Assuming there is an "it" at all and it wasn't a store of chemical weapons in tunnels under Ghouta going off by accident or design.
It may have made no sense from your viewpoint; but that does not necessarily match the Assad regime's viewpoint. I daresay the Hama massacres did not make sense from your viewpoint either, but they happened.
As I have said passim, they may not think in the same way we do. What is logical to use might not be to them, and vice versa.
The Hama massacre is logical and Assad gassing a lot of rebels would be equally logical
*if*
it wasn't crossing a red-line that could get him attacked by the global superpower. That's the part that makes it literally unbelievably stupid.
The point is that he is facing a severe, imminent threat to his regime. Indeed, they are fighting for their survival. People under such immediate threat will not necessarily see potential (not even probable) US, French or British response to the use of chemical weapons as his greatest threat.
Then there are other potential reasons, for instance testing the limits of western resolve, or use by underlings without knowledge of central command.
In his eyes, he may just have been dealing with the most imminent threat first. Deal with that, and then see what he can do about the US and GB later.
Except he isn't. He may have been at one point but then he got reinforcements from Lebanon (hence why the regime-changers quietly include Lebanon on their attack list). Those reinforcements turned the tide hence the sudden need for an excuse for massive US bombing.
I would call having fighting going on in the outskirts of your capital city a threat. That's where the gas attack occurred, and that's where rebel fighters were.
If there are "primarily rebel strongholds" in and around the capital city, I'd hardly say that was winning.
How near do rebel strongholds have to be to central Damascus for it to be an imminent threat?
That would make sense if it wasn't an ethno-sectarian civil war with the front-lines running along those ethno-sectarian dividing lines - like they do within Damascus.
Sorry JJ but as I say all the observers and commentators of the war were making big play from April onwards of the fact that Assad's regime were beating the rebels on every front. Almost all of the major towns had been recaptured and Aleppo was in imminent danger of falling.
The big problem up until mid August in the eyes of the West was that the Assad regime were in such a dominant position that they were happy to come to the negotiating table but the rebels had lost so much over the previous few months that they would not consider negotiation as they could not do so from a position of strength - generally a pre-requisite before groups will agree to talk.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Blame the victim?
Seriously?
Cui bono.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
The attack took place in suburbs of Damascus.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
Not at all. As you would understand if you had followed the war in any depth and understood the first thing about the nature of the conflict.
And Syria is not a signatory to the CW treaty anyway.
The illegality of Syria's use of CW is its definition as a war crime and/or crime against humanity.
OK not "law" but what the UN call a "norm which is grounded in international law".
Syria acceded to the Geneva Protocol in 1968 with a reservation relating to the status of Israel, but has never signed the later Chemical Weapons Convention, and is not bound by its provisions. It has not used chemical weapons in warfare, and has not contravened its obligations under the Protocol of 1925. Both Syria and the United Kingdom are parties to the UN Charter, which specifies that force may only be used in accordance with its provisions. The conditions for the use of force by the United Kingdom against Syria do not exist at the present time. If the United Kingdom uses force against Syria, it would constitute an act of war, and Syria would be entitled to seize British assets and detain British subjects, to sink British vessels, to destroy Her Majesty's Air Bases in Cyprus etc.
The second point is that HMG in the United Kingdom is being fundamentally hypocritical. We hold customary international law to be of no effect within the United Kingdom without statutory incorporation. Regina v Jones et al. [2007] 1 AC 136, at pp. 159-165 per Lord Bingham of Cornhill. In other words, it is the position of HMG that customary international law can be trumped by the laws of sovereign states.
The advice of the Attorney-General is as close as the UK government is ever likely to get as to a decision whether a proposed intervention in Syria is lawful. It is this advice which will satisfy any Cabinet before taking a decision to intervene. [Assuming that the UK ever gets round to intervening].
What is lawful is decided in court. What court will decide the law?
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Well, the Syrian army was shelling the rebel areas, so when you say "the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling" you are just using some verbal trickery to say "The rebels gassed themselves" to try not to look so utterly idiotic as if you had said the words.
The Saudi story is laughable, and no one except the likes of 9/11 "truthers" believes it. Incidentally, where are you on 9/11 "truth", and Obama's birth certificate? I just want to judge where exactly on the conspiracy spectrum you are...
Since reinforcement from Lebanon Assad was winning. By far and away the *least* likely option is Assad crossing the only red-line that could get the global superpower to attack him.
"you are just using some verbal trickery to say "The rebels gassed themselves""
If Al-Nusra fighters from Iraq and elsewhere fired some gas mortar bombs at the civilians in the Ghouta part of Damascus in what sense are they "gassing themselves?"
"The Saudi story is laughable"
The Turks captured some Al-Nusra people with Sarin bombs near the Kurdish areas - either captured from Assad's stocks or supplied from outside.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Blame the victim?
Seriously?
Cui bono.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
The attack took place in suburbs of Damascus.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
You're talking like the rebels advanced on Assad's capital and it was a last-ditch defense.
It's an ethno-sectarian civil war with the front-lines along the ethno-sectarian divisions. The rebels didn't advance victoriously on Assad's capital they already lived there.
David Miliband today put himself at odds with his Labour leader brother Ed to warn that international intervention in Syria is ‘increasingly necessary’.
The former foreign secretary condemned the failure of western governments including Britain to ‘break the diplomatic and military deadlock’ and warned humanitarian aid cannot reach refugees because aid agencies are coming under ‘aerial bombardment’.
His warning that Syria risks becoming a ‘dangerous no-man’s-land’ like Afghanistan appears at odds with Ed Miliband’s insistence that Labour will not back a second vote on UK military intervention.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Blame the victim?
Seriously?
Cui bono.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
The attack took place in suburbs of Damascus.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
You're talking like the rebels advanced on Assad's capital and it was a last-ditch defense.
It's an ethno-sectarian civil war with the front-lines along the ethno-sectarian divisions. The rebels didn't advance victoriously on Assad's capital they already lived there.
If the rebels won in Damascus, the rest would be irrelevant.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Blame the victim?
Seriously?
Cui bono.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
The attack took place in suburbs of Damascus.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
You're talking like the rebels advanced on Assad's capital and it was a last-ditch defense.
It's an ethno-sectarian civil war with the front-lines along the ethno-sectarian divisions. The rebels didn't advance victoriously on Assad's capital they already lived there.
If the rebels won in Damascus, the rest would be irrelevant.
For better or worse, the rebels aren't winning in Damascus or anywhere else.
One of the early reasons given as a possible trigger for the chemical attack was that someone took a potshot at a car carrying members of Assad's family and killed a couple of bodyguards. I have no idea if that is a sufficient cause for him to start lobbing chemical weapons around but it is a long way from the rebels winning in Damascus.
The advice of the Attorney-General is as close as the UK government is ever likely to get as to a decision whether a proposed intervention in Syria is lawful. It is this advice which will satisfy any Cabinet before taking a decision to intervene. [Assuming that the UK ever gets round to intervening].
What is lawful is decided in court. What court will decide the law?
Your arguments are of interest but not relevance.
No doubt President's Assad's chief legal adviser would furnish him with advice stating that it was legal under international and Syrian law to use chemical weapons to suppress a rebellion, if required. If that is honestly your idea idea of international law, then it follows that states may intervene in the internal affairs of other states of their own motion, and without reference to their international obligations. That is the rule of men, and strongmen at that, not the rule of international law. It also follows that you must accept that it would be not only legitimate but justified for the People's Republic of China, of its own motion, to intervene by armed force in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom, should the People's Government in Beijing adjudge that the Queen's Peace was being poorly kept in the Wirral. The logical conclusion of your argument vitiates the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia, which have formed the basis of international relations for centuries.
Sorry JJ but as I say all the observers and commentators of the war were making big play from April onwards of the fact that Assad's regime were beating the rebels on every front. Almost all of the major towns had been recaptured and Aleppo was in imminent danger of falling.
The big problem up until mid August in the eyes of the West was that the Assad regime were in such a dominant position that they were happy to come to the negotiating table but the rebels had lost so much over the previous few months that they would not consider negotiation as they could not do so from a position of strength - generally a pre-requisite before groups will agree to talk.
If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?
Try to see it strategically from Assad's point of view. Many areas of his country are in rebel hands. He has to protect his capital. He wants to retake the areas the rebels hold, but that would mean destroying a large suburb of the capital as rebels would have to be rooted out house by house.
One of the iniquitous characteristics of chemical weapons is that some can leave an area's infrastructure utterly untouched. So you launch a chemical attack, kill the rebels (or disrupt them utterly) and unfortunately any civilians alongside them, and the infrastructure is much less damaged than it would have been under a full military assault.
And you have the suburb back.
Also: even with the support of foreign fighters, he still has only so many troops. They cannot fight everywhere. The troops not needed to clear out the suburb can be usefully employed elsewhere.
I've also heard different stories about the relative strengths of Assad's force and the FSA. From what I've heard, it's much closer (and complex) than you are implying. See the links below:
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Blame the victim?
Seriously?
Cui bono.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
The attack took place in suburbs of Damascus.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
You're talking like the rebels advanced on Assad's capital and it was a last-ditch defense.
It's an ethno-sectarian civil war with the front-lines along the ethno-sectarian divisions. The rebels didn't advance victoriously on Assad's capital they already lived there.
If the rebels won in Damascus, the rest would be irrelevant.
For better or worse, the rebels aren't winning in Damascus or anywhere else.
One of the early reasons given as a possible trigger for the chemical attack was that someone took a potshot at a car carrying members of Assad's family and killed a couple of bodyguards. I have no idea if that is a sufficient cause for him to start lobbing chemical weapons around but it is a long way from the rebels winning in Damascus.
One of the reasons there's reluctance is it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for the rebels to have done it to get the US involved.
Hold on: you are saying that you think the rebels stole chemical weapons protected by elite troops, and then assembled them using expert skills, and then gassed themselves in order to prove a point to the world?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Elite troops? Expert skills? More Bond villain bollox. They'll be guarded by ninja-cyborgs next.
One part of the JIC "evidence" 1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. 2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons. Just add 3) The rebels control half the country to see how nonsensical that is.
Very notably you didn't answer the question: do you think the rebels stole the chemical weapons and then gassed themselves with them; and do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after saying this?
Gassing themselves? That wouldn't make much sense now would it - at least not deliberately.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Blame the victim?
Seriously?
Cui bono.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
The attack took place in suburbs of Damascus.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
You're talking like the rebels advanced on Assad's capital and it was a last-ditch defense.
It's an ethno-sectarian civil war with the front-lines along the ethno-sectarian divisions. The rebels didn't advance victoriously on Assad's capital they already lived there.
If the rebels won in Damascus, the rest would be irrelevant.
But they weren't winning - hence the need to drag the US in.
If this was actually about chemical weapons and not regime change i can think of at least four ways of going about it.
1) Big invasion so the two sides could be kept separate afterwards - not very popular for obvious reasons as it would probably lead to an Iraq where both sides are killing your soldiers.
2) Bomb whoever's winning until both sides surrender.
3) Explicit tally i.e. say for every use of chemical weapons we (as in the US) will take out 10 or 20 or 30 or whatever number of heavy weapons where the number can be increased with any further use until the cost-benefit of using them is negative
4) Personalize it - make it about whoever gave the order. This is another version of 3) where you try to change the cost-benefit decision.
Sorry JJ but as I say all the observers and commentators of the war were making big play from April onwards of the fact that Assad's regime were beating the rebels on every front. Almost all of the major towns had been recaptured and Aleppo was in imminent danger of falling.
The big problem up until mid August in the eyes of the West was that the Assad regime were in such a dominant position that they were happy to come to the negotiating table but the rebels had lost so much over the previous few months that they would not consider negotiation as they could not do so from a position of strength - generally a pre-requisite before groups will agree to talk.
If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?
Try to see it strategically from Assad's point of view. Many areas of his country are in rebel hands. He has to protect his capital. He wants to retake the areas the rebels hold, but that would mean destroying a large suburb of the capital as rebels would have to be rooted out house by house.
One of the iniquitous characteristics of chemical weapons is that some can leave an area's infrastructure utterly untouched. So you launch a chemical attack, kill the rebels (or disrupt them utterly) and unfortunately any civilians alongside them, and the infrastructure is much less damaged than it would have been under a full military assault.
And you have the suburb back.
Also: even with the support of foreign fighters, he still has only so many troops. They cannot fight everywhere. The troops not needed to clear out the suburb can be usefully employed elsewhere.
I've also heard different stories about the relative strengths of Assad's force and the FSA. From what I've heard, it's much closer (and complex) than you are implying. See the links below:
The cost of 4 trade union pilgrims scrounging off the state.
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Politics
17 Dec 2011 - The average full-time civil service salary is £22,100 suggesting that the full cost of trade union pilgrims is now around £5.5 million. However ...
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
I think the scale is the key point as well. If it really was a lot of attacks at once then i agree very unlikely to have been the rebels pointing therefore at someone from the regime but below Assad (because it being Assad is literally unbelievable imo). On the other hand if it was one attack / incident but the casualties scattered to multiple local hospitals leading to *reports* of an attack on multiple locations then that would be something else.
Sorry JJ but as I say all the observers and commentators of the war were making big play from April onwards of the fact that Assad's regime were beating the rebels on every front. Almost all of the major towns had been recaptured and Aleppo was in imminent danger of falling.
The big problem up until mid August in the eyes of the West was that the Assad regime were in such a dominant position that they were happy to come to the negotiating table but the rebels had lost so much over the previous few months that they would not consider negotiation as they could not do so from a position of strength - generally a pre-requisite before groups will agree to talk.
If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?
Try to see it strategically from Assad's point of view. Many areas of his country are in rebel hands. He has to protect his capital. He wants to retake the areas the rebels hold, but that would mean destroying a large suburb of the capital as rebels would have to be rooted out house by house.
One of the iniquitous characteristics of chemical weapons is that some can leave an area's infrastructure utterly untouched. So you launch a chemical attack, kill the rebels (or disrupt them utterly) and unfortunately any civilians alongside them, and the infrastructure is much less damaged than it would have been under a full military assault.
And you have the suburb back.
Also: even with the support of foreign fighters, he still has only so many troops. They cannot fight everywhere. The troops not needed to clear out the suburb can be usefully employed elsewhere.
I've also heard different stories about the relative strengths of Assad's force and the FSA. From what I've heard, it's much closer (and complex) than you are implying. See the links below:
"If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?"
They live there.
Yeah, right. Proof of that assertion, please?
Besides, it does not alter the fundamental point: the links I gave indicate that Damascus, yet alone many other towns in Syria, are being hotly contested. It is hard to fight on so may fronts at once, and both the rebels and governmental forces are being stretched.
For the reasons I gave above, it would be very tempting for Assad to use chemical weapons to retake some of the areas, if only as an experiment.
If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?
Try to see it strategically from Assad's point of view. Many areas of his country are in rebel hands. He has to protect his capital. He wants to retake the areas the rebels hold, but that would mean destroying a large suburb of the capital as rebels would have to be rooted out house by house.
One of the iniquitous characteristics of chemical weapons is that some can leave an area's infrastructure utterly untouched. So you launch a chemical attack, kill the rebels (or disrupt them utterly) and unfortunately any civilians alongside them, and the infrastructure is much less damaged than it would have been under a full military assault.
And you have the suburb back.
Also: even with the support of foreign fighters, he still has only so many troops. They cannot fight everywhere. The troops not needed to clear out the suburb can be usefully employed elsewhere.
I've also heard different stories about the relative strengths of Assad's force and the FSA. From what I've heard, it's much closer (and complex) than you are implying. See the links below:
One of the Syrian Opposition commanders talking about the proposed peace talks:
“What can we ask for when we go very weak to Geneva?” he said. “The Russians and the Iranians and the representatives of the regime will say: ‘You don’t have any power. We are controlling everything. What you are coming to ask for?’ ”
The advice of the Attorney-General is as close as the UK government is ever likely to get as to a decision whether a proposed intervention in Syria is lawful. It is this advice which will satisfy any Cabinet before taking a decision to intervene. [Assuming that the UK ever gets round to intervening].
What is lawful is decided in court. What court will decide the law?
Your arguments are of interest but not relevance.
No doubt President's Assad's chief legal adviser would furnish him with advice stating that it was legal under international and Syrian law to use chemical weapons to suppress a rebellion, if required. If that is honestly your idea idea of international law, then it follows that states may intervene in the internal affairs of other states of their own motion, and without reference to their international obligations. That is the rule of men, and strongmen at that, not the rule of international law. It also follows that you must accept that it would be not only legitimate but justified for the People's Republic of China, of its own motion, to intervene by armed force in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom, should the People's Government in Beijing adjudge that the Queen's Peace was being poorly kept in the Wirral. The logical conclusion of your argument vitiates the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia, which have formed the basis of international relations for centuries.
Well, yes, LIAMT. In theory. But even the law has to work with political reality.
What you are bemoaning is the lack of clear-cut international law and courts where law can be interpreted and decided.
The AG has argued a case based on inadequate international law, conflicting international interpretations of such law and no independent body which can arbitrate in advance or rule in retrospect. It is all we have.
And it is all we are likely to have unless or until the strongmen decide to subordinate their power to a truly independent court and defined law.
Sorry JJ but as I say all the observers and commentators of the war were making big play from April onwards of the fact that Assad's regime were beating the rebels on every front. Almost all of the major towns had been recaptured and Aleppo was in imminent danger of falling.
The big problem up until mid August in the eyes of the West was that the Assad regime were in such a dominant position that they were happy to come to the negotiating table but the rebels had lost so much over the previous few months that they would not consider negotiation as they could not do so from a position of strength - generally a pre-requisite before groups will agree to talk.
If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?
Try to see it strategically from Assad's point of view. Many areas of his country are in rebel hands. He has to protect his capital. He wants to retake the areas the rebels hold, but that would mean destroying a large suburb of the capital as rebels would have to be rooted out house by house.
One of the iniquitous characteristics of chemical weapons is that some can leave an area's infrastructure utterly untouched. So you launch a chemical attack, kill the rebels (or disrupt them utterly) and unfortunately any civilians alongside them, and the infrastructure is much less damaged than it would have been under a full military assault.
And you have the suburb back.
Also: even with the support of foreign fighters, he still has only so many troops. They cannot fight everywhere. The troops not needed to clear out the suburb can be usefully employed elsewhere.
I've also heard different stories about the relative strengths of Assad's force and the FSA. From what I've heard, it's much closer (and complex) than you are implying. See the links below:
"If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?"
They live there.
Yeah, right. Proof of that assertion, please?
Besides, it does not alter the fundamental point: the links I gave indicate that Damascus, yet alone many other towns in Syria, are being hotly contested. It is hard to fight on so may fronts at once, and both the rebels and governmental forces are being stretched.
For the reasons I gave above, it would be very tempting for Assad to use chemical weapons to retake some of the areas, if only as an experiment.
Avery LP - In reply to your Ron Paul comment, that would of course mean only about 5% of the population had the vote, albeit something that may be welcomed in a few quarters
The children’s party game, Pin the Tail on the Donkey, involves blindfolded contestants trying to impale their target. Westminster is currently engaged in a similar pursuit. It is called Pin the Blame on Ed Miliband, and anyone can play. Recent contestants include members of his own side, such as Lords Prescott and Glasman; those voters who have never warmed to him; and, naturally, the Tory leadership.
Even before the Syrian crisis, this axis of invective prompted the question: is Ed Miliband the most disliked leader in recent British history? No-hopers ranging from Michael Foot to Iain Duncan Smith failed to attract such odium, while the loathing directed at Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair was always balanced out by worship. Even Gordon Brown had an Eeyoreish quality that could pass as endearing.
Ed Miliband, by contrast, is attacked from all sides. As Labour critics worry that his policies are imprecise and his vision hazy, David Cameron has seized on his opponent’s failure to project a clear public image, painting him as weak. Such objections are minor, however, compared with the widespread wrath unleashed by Labour’s role in blocking any chance of military action in Syria.
If Barack Obama loses his vote in Congress, Mr Miliband will allegedly “own” whatever disaster befalls the Middle East.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
If he was doing so well, then why were there so many rebels on the borders of his capital city?
Try to see it strategically from Assad's point of view. Many areas of his country are in rebel hands. He has to protect his capital. He wants to retake the areas the rebels hold, but that would mean destroying a large suburb of the capital as rebels would have to be rooted out house by house.
One of the iniquitous characteristics of chemical weapons is that some can leave an area's infrastructure utterly untouched. So you launch a chemical attack, kill the rebels (or disrupt them utterly) and unfortunately any civilians alongside them, and the infrastructure is much less damaged than it would have been under a full military assault.
And you have the suburb back.
Also: even with the support of foreign fighters, he still has only so many troops. They cannot fight everywhere. The troops not needed to clear out the suburb can be usefully employed elsewhere.
I've also heard different stories about the relative strengths of Assad's force and the FSA. From what I've heard, it's much closer (and complex) than you are implying. See the links below:
One of the Syrian Opposition commanders talking about the proposed peace talks:
“What can we ask for when we go very weak to Geneva?” he said. “The Russians and the Iranians and the representatives of the regime will say: ‘You don’t have any power. We are controlling everything. What you are coming to ask for?’ ”
None of which alters the substantive point I was making. The rebels may be stretched, but so is Assad.
Besides, the links are from early June, and the apparently-gaining Syrian Army was still faced with the situation showed in the maps I linked to from last month. Do you have anything more recent?
And a rebel commander pleading weakness in order to get arms shipments is hardly unexpected. He's not likely to say: "We've got enough weaponry, thanks."
Well, yes, LIAMT. In theory. But even the law has to work with political reality.
What you are bemoaning is the lack of clear-cut international law and courts where law can be interpreted and decided.
The AG has argued a case based on inadequate international law, conflicting international interpretations of such law and no independent body which can arbitrate in advance or rule in retrospect. It is all we have.
And it is all we are likely to have unless or until the strongmen decide to subordinate their power to a truly independent court and defined law.
The UNSC is not and has never been such a body.
I am not arguing for more international courts or the like. I am arguing that sovereign states have respect for the principle that the internal affairs of other sovereign states are none of their business. Furthermore, I suggest that sovereign states abide by the obligations they have entered into with other states. The UN Charter is clear. The Chemical Weapons Convention (which Syria has not signed) is subject to the Charter, and explicitly acknowledges that action to enforce it must be referred to the UN (Article XII, CWC). "Customary international law" is a political invention of academic lawyers and of no force. The Attorney General's opinion is not worth the paper it is written on. Would a commercial client in domestic litigation pay for "advice" of its quality? Drink calls...
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
ScottP Ed M is not disliked, Thatcher was the most disliked leader in recent British history, but as you say that was balanced by the fact she was also one of the most charismatic and respected, and she was adored by the Tory faithful. Ed Miliband is just seen as odd, geeky and given virtually no respect by either the voters or MPs, but nonetheless he is politically shrewd, far more so than Hague, IDS or Foot, and has put his party in a far better position electorally than either of them ever did!
There are circumstances in which Cameron would call another vote, and probably win - such as a Syrian attack on a refugee camp in Turkey, with chemical weapons - but they're not remotely likely. Basically, we'll only get a second vote if Assad takes leave of his senses, or if he loses control of his military.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
Quoteth it: 355 died in 3 hospitals (MSF claim)[1] 494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[2] 502 killed (SOHR claim)[3] 588 killed (VDC claim)[4] 635 killed (SRGC claim)[5] 1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6] 1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7] 1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8] 1,429 killed (United States estimate)[9] 1,729 killed (FSA claim)[10]
Whereas on the Tokyo subway there were five separate attacks killing 13, seventeen critically ill, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems.
There are circumstances in which Cameron would call another vote, and probably win - such as a Syrian attack on a refugee camp in Turkey, with chemical weapons - but they're not remotely likely. Basically, we'll only get a second vote if Assad takes leave of his senses, or if he loses control of his military.
If the G20 discussions led to a resolution of the UNSC being agreed by the permanent members then we would almost certainly get another HoC vote.
Whilst you may think this is an unlikely outcome, it nevertheless remains the number one short-term goal of the UK government.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
Quoteth it: 355 died in 3 hospitals (MSF claim)[1] 494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[2] 502 killed (SOHR claim)[3] 588 killed (VDC claim)[4] 635 killed (SRGC claim)[5] 1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6] 1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7] 1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8] 1,429 killed (United States estimate)[9] 1,729 killed (FSA claim)[10]
Whereas on the Tokyo subway there were five separate attacks killing 13, seventeen critically ill, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems.
In Australia a new Reachtel poll offers the ALP a little encouragement, with the race tightening to 52-48 from a Coalition lead of 53-47 in its previous poll
Reachtel had it 52-48 when Rudd returned as leader, and had one of the lower Rudd bounces of all the polls. If that still holds true other polls could start showing 51-49, that is potential territory for a government re-election or more probably a hung parliament. This election may not be over yet folks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2013
AndyJS Well, as the old saying goes, it is never over until the fat lady sings! Of course everyone assumed Cameron would win a majority in 2010 against Brown but he did not
Heidi is my German Shepherd. The prognosticating canine. From time to time, although not so much recently, she picks winners, usually of a sporting contest of some sort.
Always done with full sciemtific rigor, I'm sure you understand ;-)
This time I decided to internationalize it. I printed photos of Obama and Boehner on one sheet, and EdM and Balls on the other, and laid them on the floor 5 feet apart, Obama on the left, and EdM on the right (tough to imagine, but humor me). Between them I placed 5 dog biscuits of equal size, equidistant from each other. Let's number them 1 to 5 left to right. 3 is a tie, 2 is a narrow victory for Obama, 1 is a big win. 4 is a narrow loss for Obama, and 5 a big loss.
Heidi sat obediently while I explained the experiment to her, and then after a short pause went for biscuit #2, a narrow win for Obama.
I was going to repeat the experiment - full scientific rigor, right - but she decided it was supper time and went and sat by the pantry door.
She actually does prety well - except Dallas Cowboys games, at which she sucks. Luckily I'm not a fan.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
Quoteth it: 355 died in 3 hospitals (MSF claim)[1] 494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[2] 502 killed (SOHR claim)[3] 588 killed (VDC claim)[4] 635 killed (SRGC claim)[5] 1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6] 1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7] 1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8] 1,429 killed (United States estimate)[9] 1,729 killed (FSA claim)[10]
Whereas on the Tokyo subway there were five separate attacks killing 13, seventeen critically ill, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems.
So 1,429 is a disputed figure?
If you take 355, that's still 27 times. If you take the lower median of 635, that's almost 50 times.
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
Quoteth it: 355 died in 3 hospitals (MSF claim)[1] 494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[2] 502 killed (SOHR claim)[3] 588 killed (VDC claim)[4] 635 killed (SRGC claim)[5] 1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6] 1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7] 1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8] 1,429 killed (United States estimate)[9] 1,729 killed (FSA claim)[10]
Whereas on the Tokyo subway there were five separate attacks killing 13, seventeen critically ill, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems.
So 1,429 is a disputed figure?
If you take 355, that's still 27 times. If you take the lower median of 635, that's almost 50 times.
Have you stopped to think that your military action might cause as many or even more civilian casualties?
The wide consensus is that the rebels lack the ability to deploy chemical weapons on this scale, whether they want to or not. I'm yet to see a convincing case the other way.
Sarin was released by terrorists on the Tokyo Metro in 1995.
Exactly Sunil. Packed Metro, 13 dead (~50 severely injured) compared with the 1,000+ reported in Damascus.
You forgot the 1000 or so with vision problems, so the total casualties are comparable.
Quoteth it: 355 died in 3 hospitals (MSF claim)[1] 494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[2] 502 killed (SOHR claim)[3] 588 killed (VDC claim)[4] 635 killed (SRGC claim)[5] 1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6] 1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7] 1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8] 1,429 killed (United States estimate)[9] 1,729 killed (FSA claim)[10]
Whereas on the Tokyo subway there were five separate attacks killing 13, seventeen critically ill, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems.
So 1,429 is a disputed figure?
If you take 355, that's still 27 times. If you take the lower median of 635, that's almost 50 times.
Have you stopped to think that your military action might cause as many or even more civilian casualties?
Comments
It is worth pointing out that a majority of MPs in the HoC did vote for intervention in Syria.
A majority of Labour MPs voted (220) for an opposition motion which gave qualified support for intervention.
A majority of Coalition MPs voted (272) for a government motion which gave qualified support for intervention.
There was no substantive difference between the government motion and opposition amendment on the qualifications and conditions for intervention.
The number of MPs voting for both the government and the opposition were minimal.
The HoC did not vote against intervention.
It just failed to get what it wanted due to the perfidy, irresponsibility and tactical opportunism of Miliband.
4) Rebel forces include elements that have defected from the Syrian army and we have no idea what skills, equipment and intelligence concerning chemical weapons locations they took with them.
The world decided, some years ago, that the use of chemical weapons was beyond the pale. Assad seems to have used chemical weapons. Ergo, we, the strongmen, under the banner of international law (which we could as easily construct so as to ban people tucking their shirts into their underpants), are taking action.
The thing I don't get is that everyone is the opposite of gung-ho about this. Everyone is deeply troubled. That is mildly comforting. They are even allowing protesters in Washington for heaven's sake.
But what I don't get is just what the anti-war muppets with their "Hands off Syria" placards actually want.
Perhaps you could explain.
Speaking of Thatcher. There's some new Margaret Thatcher graffiti south of Clapham Junction.
Not sure whether it was pro or anti. ;-)
Either way that's pretty good going for a deceased politician who left office nearly 23 year ago.
The illegality of Syria's use of CW is its definition as a war crime and/or crime against humanity.
OK not "law" but what the UN call a "norm which is grounded in international law".
They have the space,
The UK hasn't, thanks to Labours ridiculous immmigration policy .. we are already full to bursting...see the schools shortages plus the stress on the NHS and the housing shortage.
The simple questions are .. where do we put them, feed them .house them, treat their illnesses and educate them.
In December 2012 Russia announced that the number of facilities had been reduced to two in order to protect them from access by rebel factions.
MOSCOW, December 22 (RIA Novosti) - Chemical weapons are under the control of the Syrian government, which has consolidated them in one or two locations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday.
“As of right now… the [Syrian] government is doing all it can to safeguard those weapons,” he said, adding that “we are following all leads concerning chemical weapons.”
The Russian announcement followed reports that western intelligence agencies had noted movement of chemical weapon stocks within Syria.
One area where Russia has co-operated with the international community is in assisting and monitoring the safeguarding of Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities and prevention of unauthorised access to them.
The problem with not talking in generalisations is that it is hard to move out of them without looking an ass. I am not a military expert, and my knowledge of strategy and tactics are extremely limited. Indeed, the stuff I know is probably naive or false. Therefore I cannot say 'target the Syrian Army's fourth group with 3 ALCM's.' or similar.
But I will try to answer in the best way I can, and probably make myself look more of an ass than usual. Given my stated aim of making the consequences of using chemical weapons greater than the tactical advantages gained, and with my engineer's hat on, I would hesitantly propose the following:
1) Work out what Assad has gained militarily from the use of weapons (i.e. how much material he would have needed to have committed to make the same attack by conventional means). This might be the military force required to clear rebels and the civilian population out of that area of the city. Assign a 'combat value' to it.
2) Double it.
3) Target materials - tanks, planes, artillery, arms bunkers etc - that would be needed for those sorts of attacks, to that 'value'
4) Destroy them in targeted strikes. If we need to take down air defences to do this, they get added onto the totals.
5) Let the international community know your workings on points 1-3, so the strikes can be seen to be proportionate to just the chemical weapons attacks.
6) Let it be known that if there is another chemical attack, point 2 will be triple, not double.
That is probably exceptionally naive, and military bods will be laughing into their helmets. For one thing, equating value would be difficult and arguable, and targets may not be so readily or easily available. But if the effort is seen to have been made, it is a good start. It would also not be a killer blow to Assad's military force, but it would undoubtedly hurt him.
It may also be desirable to skew the targets towards the chemical weapons plants, means of delivery and units believed to be involved in their use.
But as I said in my original posts on this, the rebels need to know that there would be similar severe consequences if they have been found to use chemical weapons. This may not be military strikes: stopping providing equipment and logistics would hurt them a great deal.
Again, apologies if this is laughably naive, but that is one possible way my stated aims could be met without an invasion. There are many more.
Still, the worrying noises coming out of the US point to something far, far, beyond the above ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-putin-idUSBRE97U06120130831
'.And when the question is whether the UK would be willing to accommodate some of the refugees,you are up guarding your patch and your lifestyle.Bombing Syria is an unknown quantity but accommodating some of the refugees would be a definite help to them.'
Saudi Arabia & the Gulf states will no doubt be stepping in to help their fellow Muslims, no language ,communication problems,lots of job opportunities and plenty of cash to cover all their needs..
Moniker
There is nothing in the Reuters report of Putin's statements which conflicts the earlier RIA Novosti report.
Note carefully Putin's use of language:
"Putin said on Saturday it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning its war with rebels"
...
Putin told journalists that if Obama had evidence Assad's forces had the chemical weapons and launched the attack, Washington should present it to the U.N. weapons inspectors and the Security Council.
"I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States," Putin said.
Putin is not claiming that the CW attacks were carried out by rebels. All he is saying is that Assad is stupid and US (and allied) 'proof' should be submitted to the UNSC.
On this basis there isn't a cigarette paper's width between Putin's and our own Milband's position.
Then there are other potential reasons, for instance testing the limits of western resolve, or use by underlings without knowledge of central command.
In his eyes, he may just have been dealing with the most imminent threat first. Deal with that, and then see what he can do about the US and GB later.
Can you lay out.. how we accomodate them
Treat their illnesses.
Feed them,
Educate the children.
The small country of the UK is already full to bursting point..
Sweden is not.
I am not safeguardig my plot..I am trying to make what the UK has more habitable for the ones who already live there.
I do not reside in the UK.
Smartarse
So spare us all the faux outrage about Syrian children and admit that the reason you support the bombing is to toe the party line.
Sweden,Germany and Switzerland are accepting refugees but the UK which wants to bomb Syria won`t.That says a lot.
Still, the worrying noises coming out of the US point to something far, far, beyond the above ...
Kerry has just pleaded with the International Relations Committee of the Senate not to include a "no boots on the ground" restriction in any motion passed.
He explained that it may be necessary to secure proper destruction of CW stocks and facilities to have some boots on the ground.
The mission creep continues.
The diplomatic pressure increases.
As for how they got hold of them there are any number of different ways as we have already covered.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/09/01/yougov-polling-round-up/#vanilla-comments
Land Mass 174,000 square miles
UK Population 60 million plus
Land Mass 95,000 square miles
Also, the purpose of the strikes is expressly NOT to facilitate regime change.
Complicating this is the fact that 'the opposition' is not single and uniform, there are several groups, from the Free Syrian Army, the Hezzbollah folks, and Al Qaeda etc.
The Asad regime, repellent though it is, it is at least secular, and most of the opposition is at least as repellent as Assad.
Chemical weapon delivery system is simple - it's basically a truck. Given the time he's had, Assad has now re-deployed them to schools and civilian areas. He has also probably moved his chemical weapons inventory to diverse locations.
Given that this is not intended to bring regime change, and the chemical weapon stocks and delivery system are probably out of reach, what is the problem that this is intended to solve?
What is the mission?
What is the objective?
How will we know when we've achieved it?
What is the next step if we don't?
Will this help bring the warring parties to the negotiating table?
So far, the only argument I've heard is "If we don't people will think we're weak." They already do.
I think it is *far* more likely option that the rebels fired some gas mortar bombs into an area the Syrian army was shelling to get the US involved.
However there's also the report from the AP guy claiming the rebels had Saudi-supplied chemical weapons stored in Ghouta and there was an accident caused by the rebels not knowing how to handle them properly. So who knows.
The *least* likely option is Assad personally ordering it.
Thanks to Labour we cannot even do that
I assume you live in the UK..I look forward to you offering to take a couple of Syrian families in to your home..Well done
Seriously?
The reason I oppose the military action is there`s not enough evidence to say it will improve the plight of the Syrian people.The Iraq war is long over but people are still being killed there,so it is better to learn from the mistakes of the past and be wary of military `do good` missions.
'That`s very kind of you to think of the cultural needs of the Syrian refugees but you seem to be living in fantasy land.At the moment two million Syrians are refugees,a large proportion living in camps and waiting to face the prospect of snow with winter fast approaching.'
Any clue as to why expecting Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States to take the lead with the refugee crisis is living in fantasy land?
You are obviously ignorant of the fact that in the 60's & 70's these countries accommodated over a million Palestinian refugees after the various conflicts with Israel.
'So spare us all the faux outrage about Syrian children and admit that the reason you support the bombing is to toe the party line.'
Either international law is enforced or it's ignored,not really that complicated.
"Also, the purpose of the strikes is expressly NOT to facilitate regime change."
"Chemical weapon delivery system is simple - it's basically a truck."
That is the nub of it. The internal logic only has a few options:
1) Symbolic missiles into the desert.
2) Blowing up the chemical weapons stores themselves - not a good idea.
3) Destroying the delivery systems. Now they might be talking about rockets and scuds and hi-tech bond-villain stuff now but if they got the go-ahead they'll be back saying "erm actually he can fire this stuff from mortars and artillery or even stick it on the back of a truck so we'll need to take all of that out too and to do that we'll need to take out all his air-defenses, anti-ship batteries, command and control etc" i.e. flatten the regime i.e. regime change i.e. our glorious heart-eating allies running wild over western Syria.
The second point is that HMG in the United Kingdom is being fundamentally hypocritical. We hold customary international law to be of no effect within the United Kingdom without statutory incorporation. Regina v Jones et al. [2007] 1 AC 136, at pp. 159-165 per Lord Bingham of Cornhill. In other words, it is the position of HMG that customary international law can be trumped by the laws of sovereign states.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399
If there are "primarily rebel strongholds" in and around the capital city, I'd hardly say that was winning.
How near do rebel strongholds have to be to central Damascus for it to be an imminent threat?
LOL. They could try, I suppose.
The *least* likely option is Assad ordering it.
How desperate do you think Assad is at this point?
The Saudi story is laughable, and no one except the likes of 9/11 "truthers" believes it. Incidentally, where are you on 9/11 "truth", and Obama's birth certificate? I just want to judge where exactly on the conspiracy spectrum you are...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg
Your point is based on ignoring the single most important fact of the Syrian civil war and pretending it's evil dictator vs everyone else.
The big problem up until mid August in the eyes of the West was that the Assad regime were in such a dominant position that they were happy to come to the negotiating table but the rebels had lost so much over the previous few months that they would not consider negotiation as they could not do so from a position of strength - generally a pre-requisite before groups will agree to talk.
What is lawful is decided in court. What court will decide the law?
Your arguments are of interest but not relevance.
"you are just using some verbal trickery to say "The rebels gassed themselves""
If Al-Nusra fighters from Iraq and elsewhere fired some gas mortar bombs at the civilians in the Ghouta part of Damascus in what sense are they "gassing themselves?"
"The Saudi story is laughable"
The Turks captured some Al-Nusra people with Sarin bombs near the Kurdish areas - either captured from Assad's stocks or supplied from outside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg
You're talking like the rebels advanced on Assad's capital and it was a last-ditch defense.
It's an ethno-sectarian civil war with the front-lines along the ethno-sectarian divisions. The rebels didn't advance victoriously on Assad's capital they already lived there.
The former foreign secretary condemned the failure of western governments including Britain to ‘break the diplomatic and military deadlock’ and warned humanitarian aid cannot reach refugees because aid agencies are coming under ‘aerial bombardment’.
His warning that Syria risks becoming a ‘dangerous no-man’s-land’ like Afghanistan appears at odds with Ed Miliband’s insistence that Labour will not back a second vote on UK military intervention.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2410132/David-Miliband-defies-Ed-insist-intervention-Syria-increasingly-necessary.html#ixzz2drcz8qjG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
One of the early reasons given as a possible trigger for the chemical attack was that someone took a potshot at a car carrying members of Assad's family and killed a couple of bodyguards. I have no idea if that is a sufficient cause for him to start lobbing chemical weapons around but it is a long way from the rebels winning in Damascus.
Try to see it strategically from Assad's point of view. Many areas of his country are in rebel hands. He has to protect his capital. He wants to retake the areas the rebels hold, but that would mean destroying a large suburb of the capital as rebels would have to be rooted out house by house.
One of the iniquitous characteristics of chemical weapons is that some can leave an area's infrastructure utterly untouched. So you launch a chemical attack, kill the rebels (or disrupt them utterly) and unfortunately any civilians alongside them, and the infrastructure is much less damaged than it would have been under a full military assault.
And you have the suburb back.
Also: even with the support of foreign fighters, he still has only so many troops. They cannot fight everywhere. The troops not needed to clear out the suburb can be usefully employed elsewhere.
I've also heard different stories about the relative strengths of Assad's force and the FSA. From what I've heard, it's much closer (and complex) than you are implying. See the links below:
http://www.polgeonow.com/2013/08/syria-civil-war-map-august-2013-11.html
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/opposition-advances-damascus
Hardly dominant.
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Damascus-Aug2013_0.jpg
From this page, giving textual information:
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/opposition-advances-damascus
If this was actually about chemical weapons and not regime change i can think of at least four ways of going about it.
1) Big invasion so the two sides could be kept separate afterwards - not very popular for obvious reasons as it would probably lead to an Iraq where both sides are killing your soldiers.
2) Bomb whoever's winning until both sides surrender.
3) Explicit tally i.e. say for every use of chemical weapons we (as in the US) will take out 10 or 20 or 30 or whatever number of heavy weapons where the number can be increased with any further use until the cost-benefit of using them is negative
4) Personalize it - make it about whoever gave the order. This is another version of 3) where you try to change the cost-benefit decision.
They live there.
'Cost in legal fees £90,000'
The cost of 4 trade union pilgrims scrounging off the state.
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Politics
17 Dec 2011 - The average full-time civil service salary is £22,100 suggesting that the full cost of trade union pilgrims is now around £5.5 million. However ...
Besides, it does not alter the fundamental point: the links I gave indicate that Damascus, yet alone many other towns in Syria, are being hotly contested. It is hard to fight on so may fronts at once, and both the rebels and governmental forces are being stretched.
For the reasons I gave above, it would be very tempting for Assad to use chemical weapons to retake some of the areas, if only as an experiment.
“What can we ask for when we go very weak to Geneva?” he said. “The Russians and the Iranians and the representatives of the regime will say: ‘You don’t have any power. We are controlling everything. What you are coming to ask for?’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/world/middleeast/syria-opposition-wont-attend-talks-unless-rebels-get-arms-commander-says.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/20136954839700894.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/world/middleeast/as-rebels-lose-ground-in-syria-us-mulls-options.html?hp&_r=0
What you are bemoaning is the lack of clear-cut international law and courts where law can be interpreted and decided.
The AG has argued a case based on inadequate international law, conflicting international interpretations of such law and no independent body which can arbitrate in advance or rule in retrospect. It is all we have.
And it is all we are likely to have unless or until the strongmen decide to subordinate their power to a truly independent court and defined law.
The UNSC is not and has never been such a body.
Besides, the links are from early June, and the apparently-gaining Syrian Army was still faced with the situation showed in the maps I linked to from last month. Do you have anything more recent?
And a rebel commander pleading weakness in order to get arms shipments is hardly unexpected. He's not likely to say: "We've got enough weaponry, thanks."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100025451/whatever-you-do-dont-mention-immigration/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
No comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks
There are a lot of estimates, but there is no comparison with the Japan attack.
355 died in 3 hospitals (MSF claim)[1]
494 killed (The Damascus Media Office claim)[2]
502 killed (SOHR claim)[3]
588 killed (VDC claim)[4]
635 killed (SRGC claim)[5]
1,222 killed (HRO East Ghouta claim)[6]
1,300 killed (SNC claim)[7]
1,338 killed (LCC claim)[8]
1,429 killed (United States estimate)[9]
1,729 killed (FSA claim)[10]
Whereas on the Tokyo subway there were five separate attacks killing 13, seventeen critically ill, thirty-seven severe and 984 moderately ill with vision problems.
Whilst you may think this is an unlikely outcome, it nevertheless remains the number one short-term goal of the UK government.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/09/04/reachtel-52-48-to-coalition-2/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2013
Still not a single prosecution after 28 years of being illegal.
Always done with full sciemtific rigor, I'm sure you understand ;-)
This time I decided to internationalize it. I printed photos of Obama and Boehner on one sheet, and EdM and Balls on the other, and laid them on the floor 5 feet apart, Obama on the left, and EdM on the right (tough to imagine, but humor me). Between them I placed 5 dog biscuits of equal size, equidistant from each other. Let's number them 1 to 5 left to right. 3 is a tie, 2 is a narrow victory for Obama, 1 is a big win. 4 is a narrow loss for Obama, and 5 a big loss.
Heidi sat obediently while I explained the experiment to her, and then after a short pause went for biscuit #2, a narrow win for Obama.
I was going to repeat the experiment - full scientific rigor, right - but she decided it was supper time and went and sat by the pantry door.
She actually does prety well - except Dallas Cowboys games, at which she sucks. Luckily I'm not a fan.