Sadly this site is just an eco [sic] chamber of the same few Tory posters. Hopefully on his return he will sort it out.
Write a thread; Offer your services as an editor/moderator; Get a life. It is all up to you Mr Islam-of-Socialism. Sadly your addiction to bought politics is not a healthy sign about your opinions or neutrality.
Oh, by-the-bye, it is an Oz election day. Your freckin' West-Country "groundwork" and "Al-Gore Rythms" failed. Suck It Up!!! *
SP ..Didn't realise it was our invasion .. silly me. we bombed Dresden and killed a lot there too When was the last time in the UK that the government of the day gassed 1400 of its citizens, 400 being children,
Sunder Katwala @sundersays Ed Miliband's party reforms could now turn into a Clause 4 moment: Hugh Gaitskell's Clause 4 moment of 1960 (negotiated climbdown), that is
@sundersays Ed Miliband's party reforms could now turn into a Clause 4 moment: Hugh Gaitskell's Clause 4 moment of 1960 (negotiated climbdown), that is
AnneJP ..Could you try to be a little more obscure.. We are talking about the decision taken to gas a commiunity where 1400 people died, 400 being infants. I assume and may be wrong that you are tallking about abortion laws..
Mark Kleinman @MarkKleinmanSky Exclusive: George Osborne ready for Lloyds share sale as soon as next week, sources close to process say. Full story: bit.ly/1aVbdJu
AnneJP ..Could you try to be a little more obscure.. We are talking about the decision taken to gas a commiunity where 1400 people died, 400 being infants. I assume and may be wrong that you are tallking about abortion laws..
RD. Medecins Sans Frontiers reported 355 dead in total. Presume they (MSF) are neutral. Still a terrible high number of course. But the "1400" is a U.S. "estimate".
SP ..Didn't realise it was our invasion .. silly me. we bombed Dresden and killed a lot there too When was the last time in the UK that the government of the day gassed 1400 of its citizens, 400 being children,
RD would you have liked it if, for argument's sake, Russia and China had decided to invade NI because of the Paras' actions in Londonderry back in 1972?
tim .. would that be ED's awesome speech day.. which one in particular? ..so many to choose from
It must be the awesome speech made as result of the non-story in Falkirk, where he promised all the reforms to the union relationship that Len has now told him to forget about.
.....When was the last time in the UK that the government of the day gassed 1400 of its citizens, 400 being children,
richardD, the point I was making is that views of what is acceptable differ widely, so if we make a case for military action on grounds like that, we may find our own arguments being used to justify military action against us.
Only we would call that terrorism, of course - an attack on our way of life.
I don't want to start a debate on abortion, but surely you can see that, to another (hypothetical) society which believes that unborn children count, our values on that issue leave a lot to be desired.
The Syrian civil war is killing lots of children anyway, but we weren't bothered about that until the gas business.
Does the Australian election result have any bearing all on what goes on here in the UK???
I don;t really see how it can have.
@toadmeister: The Australian Labour Party polled its lowest share of the vote for 100 years, adding to global anti-socialist trend http://bit.ly/mQCUQH
@toadmeister: British Labour Party polled lowest share of the vote since 1983 at 2010 election; Swedish Social Democrats lowest since 1921
@toadmeister: At the last European election, the German Social Democrats polled lowest share of the vote since WW2. The Left is in meltdown everywhere...
A.A.Emmerson @AAEmmerson Owen Jones logic of the day "We've closed down two places poor people can get emergency money to tell everyone how bad it is being poor"
AnneJP ..Could you try to be a little more obscure.. We are talking about the decision taken to gas a commiunity where 1400 people died, 400 being infants. I assume and may be wrong that you are tallking about abortion laws..
RD would you have liked it if, for argument's sake, Russia and China had decided to invade NI because of the Paras' actions in Londonderry back in 1972?
Maybe China and Pakistan missed the plot: After the Massacre in the Golden-Temple and the crass distruction of Ayodyha maybe you and Max need to be taught about the consequences of your BJP/Hindu prejudices, no...?
1972 is history: Even the 'Septics weren't too bothered about the death of a few bog-trotting Marxist sympathisers. Only the EU would intervene now: How many battalions do they have...?
Rather unpredictable (alas!) qualifying in Monza. Quite entertaining, if not profitable (my tip was wrong, but I was more or less evens due to taking a few pounds laying Grosjean at 1.4 to reach Q3).
The big story, though, isn't Red Bull, Hulkenberg, or Hamilton. It's Alonso. Based on what I heard at the end of the BBC prog, we *might* see Raikkonen replace Alonso, or even both Ferrari drivers leave.
Does the Australian election result have any bearing all on what goes on here in the UK???
I don;t really see how it can have.
UK book-makers? UK puhndits? UK ship designers in Bristol? Lots of interest in the outcome of the election within the penal-colony. Well apart from New South Wales....
AnneLP ..Can you now alert us to which countries are about to invade the UK because we carry out licensed, and under strict medical /legal guidance , abortions.The Vatican Cty Southern Ireland.?? any more.. we should be told
RD would you have liked it if, for argument's sake, Russia and China had decided to invade NI because of the Paras' actions in Londonderry back in 1972?
Maybe China and Pakistan missed the plot: After the Massacre in the Golden-Temple and the crass distruction of Ayodyha maybe you and Max need to be taught about the consequences of your BJP/Hindu prejudices, no...?
I'm not a Hindu, Fluffy. I don't believe in reincarnation, innit!
Lots of interest in the outcome of the election within the penal-colony.
I was thinking about whether it would have any bearing on the political debate here. Abbott is pretty radical on climate change and immigration, for example.
RD would you have liked it if, for argument's sake, Russia and China had decided to invade NI because of the Paras' actions in Londonderry back in 1972?
Maybe China and Pakistan missed the plot: After the Massacre in the Golden-Temple and the crass distruction of Ayodyha maybe you and Max need to be taught about the consequences of your BJP/Hindu prejudices, no...?
1972 is history: Even the 'Septics weren't too bothered about the death of a few bog-trotting Marxist sympathisers. Only the EU would intervene now: How many battalions do they have...?
RD would you have liked it if, for argument's sake, Russia and China had decided to invade NI because of the Paras' actions in Londonderry back in 1972?
Maybe China and Pakistan missed the plot: After the Massacre in the Golden-Temple and the crass distruction of Ayodyha maybe you and Max need to be taught about the consequences of your BJP/Hindu prejudices, no...?
1972 is history: Even the 'Septics weren't too bothered about the death of a few bog-trotting Marxist sympathisers. Only the EU would intervene now: How many battalions do they have...?
The UK was part of the operation which has resulted in a million deaths in Iraq which would otherwise not have taken place.Perhaps the political and military leaders should be prosecuted at the International Court for their part in those deaths.
And don`t post about issues about which you have little knowledge.
FluffyThoughts With the Coalition's austerity Clegg's Liberals more economically liberal, but it varies, just as UK's Liberals centre/centre-left, Australia's Liberals centre-right, Canada's Liberal Party centre-left, Germany's Liberal Party centre-right, Japan's Liberals centre-right, Sweden, France and Italy centrist Liberal parties. In US a 'liberal' is centre-left
India's Congress Party-led coalition could still be described as centre-left yet it also described as "liberal", with a small "l".
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
"The problem with that is that those who would see themselves in such a role are self-appointed. There is no United Nations backing for air strikes (indeed, the Security Council hasn’t been able to pass any resolution on Syria for over a year), nor are states enforcing the verdict of some international court."
This is the crux of the matter: the so called United Nations is a useless body. It always was so, when it only had 50 odd members, despite well meaning attempts in its early days to become something more than a debating society. How one expects 191 countries to agree on anything, is itself a delusion of the supposed mighty. There will always be groups of countries that will block anything a rival group wants or proposes. No; the UN is dead! Something like that living corps, Obama.
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Will only Ukip be standing on a "scrap carbon taxes" manifesto in 2015 here ?
Written most of the preamble to the pre-race piece, but the markets haven't really got going yet and no bet particularly jumps out at me, so I'll wait for them to do so and see if Sutil gets a penalty.
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Will only Ukip be standing on a "scrap carbon taxes" manifesto in 2015 here ?
Is scrapping carbon taxes in the UKiP manifesto for 2015? – genuine question.
If it is, then imho, I’m sure they will be the only party that is.
40 Nations took part in the invasion of Iraq..with four of them supplying the initial wave of military. Seems like a consensus there
The UK and the US are the drivers behind that operation/war and they were the ones who *invented* evidence that Saddam has WMD.And what if Saddam had WMD,so do the U.S,UK,Russia,France,China,India,Pakistan and Israel.And the U.S is the only user of nuclear weapons in the world so far.
So a phoney war against phoney weapons driven by phoney intelligence of two war-mongering countries. Where is the prosecution of the intelligence chiefs of the two countries?
AnneLP ..Can you now alert us to which countries are about to invade the UK because we carry out licensed, and under strict medical /legal guidance , abortions.The Vatican Cty Southern Ireland.?? any more.. we should be told
Any society which valued the lives of the unborn would be very likely also to value the lives of the born. I instanced abortion as a cultural difference because you referred to born-infants being killed.
There are other cultural issues which could be made the excuse. Suppose a country with great military might decided we would be better off under communism, say, or under Sharia law.
My point is that "Our Values" is a Pandora's Box as a reason for military action.
Sunder Katwala @sundersays Ed Miliband's party reforms could now turn into a Clause 4 moment: Hugh Gaitskell's Clause 4 moment of 1960 (negotiated climbdown), that is
Thanks for providing Sunder's answer to my question this morning in the FPT. When was the last time a Leader of the Labour party was forced to back down in a major way by a Union?
I thought Kinnock, Callaghan or Wilson. But Gaitskill! RedEd is showing his socialist roots.
Lots of interest in the outcome of the election within the penal-colony.
I was thinking about whether it would have any bearing on the political debate here. Abbott is pretty radical on climate change and immigration, for example.
1) Another set-back for the global warming scam. 2) More evidence for the left that cheer-leading mass immigration of low-skilled labour is cheer-leading economic warfare against their own voters. It won't matter in the long-term as the original working class population is replaced but it will make things difficult for them until then.
Delyth Evans selected for Labour in Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. Former assistant to Gordon Brown, speech writer to John Smith and SpAd to Alun Michel, she replaced him as AM in 2000 until 2003.
on-topic "The argument advanced is that the action is justified by the Duty to Protect"
The problem with that argument is 1) the entirely foreseeable consequences of toppling Assad and letting Hague's Hearteaters loose on western Syria as those people ought to be covered by any duty to protect as well, 2) the total silence from the pro-chaos lobby over the massacres in Egypt.
Anyone can say: It's less than [Insert Party Here] wasted paying £[Insert BigNumber] to give gold plated [Silly Thing] to [Groups Who Do Badly In Focus Groups]
The fool who posted that reply presumably thinks it was witty/clever/cutting so let's not burst his tragic bubble. It's a kindness thing.
'When is Mike back? Sadly this site is just an eco chamber of the same few Tory posters. Hopefully on his return he will sort it out.'
Never mind, Ed's having a good year.
The pendulum will swing, the Tories will have a bad spell and all will be right in IOS's world. He's just a likkle bit sad at the moment at how crap Milliband appears. He'll cheer up when Cameron drops his next bollock.
I'd never really given the issue any thought until a recent thread (the thread just before the one where tax-funded political parties was discussed). My gut reaction was No Thanks, as it seems to be for most people.
But in a few exchanges on that thread, I've almost convinced myself that tax-funding would be a good thing after all!
1972 is history: Even the 'Septics weren't too bothered about the death of a few bog-trotting Marxist sympathisers. Only the EU would intervene now: How many battalions do they have...?
The current EU "battle group" consists of Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK (42 Commando) in charge. So the technical answer to your question is a depressing 19, with 2 at readiness. Not that it would be like that in reality. 42 Commando is currently on Cougar13.
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Will only Ukip be standing on a "scrap carbon taxes" manifesto in 2015 here ?
Is scrapping carbon taxes in the UKiP manifesto for 2015? – genuine question.
If it is, then imho, I’m sure they will be the only party that is.
Not only carbon taxes, but windmills and all the paraphanalia of the green agenda.
The current EU "battle group" consists of... a depressing 19, with 2 at readiness.
Two battalions; At most 1200 men? From 19 units (which could form ~6 Regiments, or 6 Brigades, maybe 2 Divisions) and Frau YouGov has two battalions on-tap: What a waste...!
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Will only Ukip be standing on a "scrap carbon taxes" manifesto in 2015 here ?
Is scrapping carbon taxes in the UKiP manifesto for 2015? – genuine question.
If it is, then imho, I’m sure they will be the only party that is.
Not only carbon taxes, but windmills and all the paraphanalia of the green agenda.
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Will only Ukip be standing on a "scrap carbon taxes" manifesto in 2015 here ?
Is scrapping carbon taxes in the UKiP manifesto for 2015? – genuine question.
If it is, then imho, I’m sure they will be the only party that is.
Not only carbon taxes, but windmills and all the paraphanalia of the green agenda.
Cheers MikeK - now that is what I would describe 'radical' - enough to set thew cat amongst the pigeons.
Two battalions; At most 1200 men? From 19 units (which could form ~6 Regiments, or 6 Brigades, maybe 2 Divisions) and Frau YouGov has two battalions on-tap: What a waste...!
Again I put the proviso "in theory" those 19 are 16 battalions with ~1,500 men and 3 battalions with ~2,500 men.
They're not all first line combat though. Bear in mind for example that Lithuania provide the really exciting stuff - the water purification experts. Our current battle group will be going into battle armed with assault-spanners and medium-range drain cleaner.
The whole thing is a fantastic waste of money. Sweden is in the current group. When they last did their 6 month stint back in 2008 (as leaders) it cost them 1.2 billion Swedish kronor (app. 150,000,000 euros) and the Battle Group wasn't used for anything.
@ David Herdson. The entire article is off point. The two principal moral and legal justifications for military action against Syria in response to CW use have nothing to do with either justice or the civil war in Syria. That is why these 1000+ deaths are different from the preceding 120,000+.
The first is the defence of international law, to whit the Chemical Weapons Convention, the 1925 Geneva Protocol and, to the extent that these are now enshrined in it, customary international law. If the world fails to react, effectively half a century of arms control and disarmament efforts are torn up, not to mention efforts to develop international humanitarian law (the rules of war)
The second justification is (US) national security - failure to act would undermine the CWC and the 1925 GP, and thus the ban on both the possession and use of chemical weapons, which would be a threat to US (and other States Parties') national security given that they have foregone their arsenals of CW (and probably scaled back their spending on CW defences and research into such defenses). It is this threat to national security that would then justify unilateral action without UN sanction (at least that is the logic, whether you accept the point or not).
When Obama talks about the international red line, it is the first point. When he talks about the legal basis for intervention without UN sanction, it is the second.
I accept that the general public may be debating this matter based on other parameters, such as the rather absurd imperialist one you attempt to make. (France is the sole depositary power for the 1925 Geneva Protocol and has long been very vocal and protective of the ban on CW use contained in it - that is why it takes such a high profile stance on this issue). But those other issues are not what is the central point of the debate amongst policy-makers as to whether there is a need and a justification to act. Rather, they feature on whether to act, given the fallout such other considerations may engender.
As you rightly point out, of the potential winners in Syria at the moment, none are attractive to the international community and this is the principal drag on calls for action.
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Will only Ukip be standing on a "scrap carbon taxes" manifesto in 2015 here ?
Is scrapping carbon taxes in the UKiP manifesto for 2015? – genuine question.
If it is, then imho, I’m sure they will be the only party that is.
Not only carbon taxes, but windmills and all the paraphanalia of the green agenda.
What is the UKIP position on climate change?
We know that climate changes over time. Sometimes quickly like the cold winters of the 17th and part of the 19th century. Sometimes slowly. However we don't believe that any part of climate change is MAN MADE as spouted by the true believers of MMCC.
Syria has become Miliband's 'election that never was' - a cock up of monumental proportions that will doom his leadership. Remember, there were serious calls for Cameron, Hague or both to resign immediately after the vote. Ed has turned what should have been Dave's humiliation into an allegory of his own floundering leadership. And Steve Richards likens Ed to Neil Kinnock, and this article is meant to be supportive:
"RD. Medecins Sans Frontiers reported 355 dead in total. Presume they (MSF) are neutral. Still a terrible high number of course. But the "1400" is a U.S. "estimate"."
I believe the MSF estimate was of those passing through the hospitals they help staff. Here is the quote from the BBC:
"Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died."
@Taffys - Abbott’s four big election themes were: Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats (via which illegal immigrants enter Australia); Cut taxes; and, more recently, Build new roads.
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Will only Ukip be standing on a "scrap carbon taxes" manifesto in 2015 here ?
Is scrapping carbon taxes in the UKiP manifesto for 2015? – genuine question.
If it is, then imho, I’m sure they will be the only party that is.
Not only carbon taxes, but windmills and all the paraphanalia of the green agenda.
What is the UKIP position on climate change?
We know that climate changes over time. Sometimes quickly like the cold winters of the 17th and part of the 19th century. Sometimes slowly. However we don't believe that any part of climate change is MAN MADE as spouted by the true believers of MMCC.
The argument advanced is that the action is justified by the Duty to Protect
David, I have updated the version of this post I made to LIAMT in the dark hours of the night a couple of days ago.
The "Duty to Protect" argument is wider than the specific UN "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" initiative but both are the product of a fifty year trend within and outside the UN towards the legitimisation of military intervention on humanitarian grounds.
"Lawful" and "legitimate" are not always the same. Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, in their book on the late 20th century debate on intervention, "give an account of the historical dichotomy between positive and natural law. They distinguish between 'restrictionists', who adhere to the dominant interpretation of positive law that prohibits intervention, and 'counter-restrictionists', who argue that state sovereignty is not absolute and intervention is allowed for the purpose of preventing atrocities, even when those atrocities occur within the borders of the responsible state." [Seybolt]
Those who argue that military intervention is only legal if authorised by the UNSC are 'restrictionist' in this definition and they base their case on 'positive law'. But it is political leaders and legislators who set such positive law, who create courts to adjudicate upon such law, and, who accept or reject their jurisdiciton. International law on intervention therefore follows from and adapts to changing political consensus and will rather than leads it. This applies as much to the UN itself as it does to individual sovereign states.
The UN, under Kofi Annan, has adapted and advance its position on intervention since the debates on Kosovo and Iraq (2003). Post Kosovo, Annan saw the need to respond to the threat of regional alliances, such as NATO replacing, or at least bypassing, the role of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
In the early noughties, Annan confronted the UN Assembly with calls to "forge unity" around basic principles of intervention in cases of extreme need:
"if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebenica - to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity? In essence the problem is one of responsibility in circumstances in which universally accepted human rights are being violated on a massive scale we have a responsibility to act."
Canada responded by setting up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty which articulated the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. R2P shifted emphasis from protecting the sovereign rights of nations towards towards asserting the duties and responsibilities of individual nations and the international community to all citizens.
Academic writers asserted that the "point has now been reached where the just war principles have wide currency as a political and moral, but not legal, framework for judging the legitimacy of military intervention for human protection purposes. These guidelines are presented as a complement to positive law and the strong presumption of non-intervention" [Seybolt].
These moral and political principles have advanced ahead of the legal framework, although the UN has sought to document and seek approval for the new thinking. Annan's 'High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change' document endorsed "the emerging norm that there is an international responsibility to protect [civilians] ... in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent".
Annan took this forward to the General Assembly under the document 'In larger freedom' at the 2005 UN World Summit where the General Assembly "endorsed the concept of the sovereign responsibility to protect civilians, including by using force as a last resort against states that do not live up to that responsibility".
This is the background to the claims of government legal officers in the US, UK and other western states, that intervention in exceptional and qualifying cases is, at least, legitimate and, arguably, lawful provided it meets the guidlelines developed and agreed in and around the UN over the past couple of decades. It also lies behind Obama's repeated accusation that Syria has "breached international norms".
This position won't meet the approval of the 'restrictionists', such as Putin (but is his position on Syria consistent with that on Georgia?) but it does have the current consensus support of the legal and moral commentariat and, more importantly, the leading Western powers, both within and without the UN.
An oasis in a desert of some of the most inane posts I've ever read on here.I don't happen to agree with your solutions but at least it was written by a grown up.
TGHOF As well as Murdoch's anti public sector and welfare rant, a few more twitter reactions to the Australian result below:
@DanHannanMEP 3h Many congratulations to @TonyAbbottMHR, and to Australians for electing him: that great country is, I feel certain, entering a golden age
@David_Cameron 2h I've just phoned and congratulated the new Australian PM @TonyAbbottMHR - it'll be great working with another centre right leader.
@IainDale 3h If only @KRuddMP had the manners and good grace of his predecessor @JuliaGillard. His concession speech didn't even mention her. A disgrace. (Although Gillard did not mention Rudd in her speech on election night 2010)
@JuliaGillard 3h Congrats to Mr Abbott & Mr Truss for leading their parties to victory. I wish them & their teams well. It's always an honour to serve. JG
@JuliaGillard 3h A tough night for Labor. But a spirited fight by Kevin, Albo, George + the whole team. My thoughts are with you all. JG
@Queen_UK 4h Oh God. Wouldn't have a lot of confidence asking Tony Abbott to form a conga, let alone a Government. What have you done, Australia?!
@IainDale 4h Delighted to see the ego that is called Julian Assange has fallen flat on his face in the Aussie election. A cooper-bottomed shit.
@RolandRudd 5h Turning back foreign boats, expensive federal parental schemes and outdated social conservatism win the day in a depressing Aussie election
@afneil 5h Abbott is clear winner in Oz but not quite a meltdown for Labor. Rudd has mitigated losses.
@toadmeister 2h The Australian Labour Party polled its lowest share of the vote for 100 years, adding to global anti-socialist trend
@TimMontgomerie 1h Big congrats to @LoughnaneB for his immense role in Abbott win. Great campaigner, big brain and gentleman. Sometimes the good guys do win.
@ AveryLP Thanks for your posts. By my post, I was not attempting to say that those were the only possible justifications for intervention in Syria, rather that they are the principal ones under consideration this side of the pond, which is effectively the only one that matters at the moment with regards to the outcomes.
I entirely agree with your analysis of the development of thinking on the right/obligation to intervene in the face of gross violations of human rights. Unfortunately, this thinking has not been paralleled with clear thinking on the legal, moral and political consequences of the UN failing to act to defend its own Charter and rules.
An oasis in a desert of some of the most inane posts I've ever read on here.I don't happen to agree with your solutions but at least it was written by a grown up.
If we were still allowed to link images I'd have replaced this post with the obvious Les Dawson persona. But we are not allowed...
@ Roger. Thank you for the kind words. I am not sure I have solutions for the Syria situation. It looks remarkably like a lose, lose, lose one. So the question is which is the least bad, and our crystal ball is remarkably murky.
I do know that inaction will have serious consequences, but so too will every course of action I can envisage.
Vaguely on-topic, it's fair to say France has intervened on a number of occasions in her former African colonies such as the Central African Republic though the Algerian episode was far from distinguished.
I'm still struggling to see how the Syria vote has been some kind of disaster for Ed Miliband. Those not well disposed toward him and his Party have been frantically spinning and blogging over the past ten days to this effect but from where I'm sitting David Cameron instigated the sequence of events and is the principal casualty.
Yet if we are to believe some on here the Commons defeat was actually a triumph for the Prime Minister. Yeah, right.....
Another fascinating piece from Allister Heath showing that while higher gilt yields will help reduce pension fund deficits, the big loser of the Bond Market Crash is the good old taxpayer through QE which is increasingly looking like a huge strategic error of judgement.
Interest rates are going to have to rise and while we all know why Osborne wants to keep them low until at least May 2015, the rises, when they come, could well have a sobering effect on some people's economic exuberance.
@ Roger. Thank you for the kind words. I am not sure I have solutions for the Syria situation. It looks remarkably like a lose, lose, lose one. So the question is which is the least bad, and our crystal ball is remarkably murky.
I do know that inaction will have serious consequences, but so too will every course of action I can envisage.
I agree. And for those who want "action", how do they know when to stop the "action"?
Thanks for your considered response. I'd agree with much of what you write. It's about the 10% where we disagree that pushes me in entirely the other direction.
You write "If the world fails to react ...". There are two points there. The first is that 'the world' has and will fail to react. The UN is paralysed, the Arab League is split, the G20 is divided. If any response to the regime's use of chemical weapons does take place, it will be a coalition of the willing acting on their own initiative, not the spearhead of global opinion.
The second is that the reaction must have a purpose: to what end is it employed? I've not heard anyone be clear on this, other than 'to deter' future use - but that's a psychological rather than military or political end and pretty much impossible to be assured that it's been achieved. In any case, I don't accept that it's realistic to separate the reaction to the use of CW from the situation on the ground, nor am I comfortable with the implicit condoning of civil war sans chemical weapons.
FWIW, I believe much greater effort should be put into getting international bodies to declaring that a war crime and crime against humanity has occurred in Syria, and to demanding that those individuals responsible face justice in a court of law, and have diplomatic accreditation withdrawn, where relevant. That is a diplomatic process that might just stand a chance of success, while not killing more people in Syria and not improving the chances of some very dodgy rebel groups.
As for the use of CW, it's happened before and may well happen again. Let's use the rapier rather than the bludgeon and respond to the individuals who authorised and commissioned the action, even if that takes longer.
Vaguely on-topic, it's fair to say France has intervened on a number of occasions in her former African colonies such as the Central African Republic though the Algerian episode was far from distinguished.
I'm still struggling to see how the Syria vote has been some kind of disaster for Ed Miliband. Those not well disposed toward him and his Party have been frantically spinning and blogging over the past ten days to this effect but from where I'm sitting David Cameron instigated the sequence of events and is the principal casualty.
Yet if we are to believe some on here the Commons defeat was actually a triumph for the Prime Minister. Yeah, right.....
Another fascinating piece from Allister Heath showing that while higher gilt yields will help reduce pension fund deficits, the big loser of the Bond Market Crash is the good old taxpayer through QE which is increasingly looking like a huge strategic error of judgement.
Interest rates are going to have to rise and while we all know why Osborne wants to keep them low until at least May 2015, the rises, when they come, could well have a sobering effect on some people's economic exuberance.
You made a mistake of posting about the economy when @ALP is around...Now he`s gonna post another couple of pages of why you are wrong and `it`s all good news`.
I entirely agree with your analysis of the development of thinking on the right/obligation to intervene in the face of gross violations of human rights. Unfortunately, this thinking has not been paralleled with clear thinking on the legal, moral and political consequences of the UN failing to act to defend its own Charter and rules.
The Security Council concept was pretty much _designed_ to allow the UN to fail to act to defend its own charter and rules, wasn't it? It's a bunch of (then) powerful countries that all have a veto so they can protect their client states.
The obvious solution is more independent international institutions that can act without Security Council vetos, but it's hard to see the US agreeing to those, because the US can wield arbitrary power under the current system, and isn't particularly interested in strengthening the rule of law.
@ AveryLP Thanks for your posts. By my post, I was not attempting to say that those were the only possible justifications for intervention in Syria, rather that they are the principal ones under consideration this side of the pond, which is effectively the only one that matters at the moment with regards to the outcomes.
I entirely agree with your analysis of the development of thinking on the right/obligation to intervene in the face of gross violations of human rights. Unfortunately, this thinking has not been paralleled with clear thinking on the legal, moral and political consequences of the UN failing to act to defend its own Charter and rules.
TimT
We actually cross-posted as I hadn't read your posts when I posted mine, so it is interesting seeing us both approaching the same problem from different angles.
To my mind, the most difficult "just war" principle facing Obama in intervening in Syria, is for the intervention to have "a reasonable prospect of success".
The right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort and proportional means requirements are easier to fulfill. But reasonable prospects of success?
Dropping bombs and firing missiles for a limited period at limited targets as a warning hardly fulfills this requirement. What Matt in his cartoon captioned: "We want you to fly over Syria, wag your finger at Assad, and fly back".
It is difficult to see how 'limited, proportional and targetted' strike can degrade Assad's CW delivery capabilities. That is why I found it interesting that Kerry was asking the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (?) not to include a "no boots on the ground" restriction, saying that such intervention may be necessary to securely destroy Assad's stocks and facilities.
I would be interested to hear from you how feasible it would be to destroy CW stocks and facilities by means of remote attack.
Unless this is the case, then surely the right move for Obama is to give out a specific ultimatum on verifiable decommissioning of facilities and secure destruction of stocks, with the consequences of non-compliance being military intervention of wider scope and longer duration. The goal of such intervention would remain the same: to destroy Assad's capability of deploying CW but it would recognise that this can only be achieved by means of a more comprehensive destruction of his general military capabilities.
I am coming at this from a different direction, say to Cordesman and McCain, by keeping the goal narrow but the action wide. But the end may be the same: if a state won't cease and desist using CW maybe the only realistic sanction is to change the regime.
FWIW, I believe much greater effort should be put into getting international bodies to declaring that a war crime and crime against humanity has occurred in Syria, and to demanding that those individuals responsible face justice in a court of law, and have diplomatic accreditation withdrawn, where relevant. That is a diplomatic process that might just stand a chance of success, while not killing more people in Syria and not improving the chances of some very dodgy rebel groups.
@ No_Offence_Alan "how do they know when to stop the "action"?"
For those who want action, they want it to be sufficiently painful to deter Assad from using CW again and to warn off any other bad guys from doing so, while being limited in scope and duration - Goldilocks' porridge. The trouble is knowing the effect one wants to produce and knowing how to produce exactly that are not the same thing. Otherwise we'd all be billionaires, or Nobel Laureates, or world famous artists, or Gareth Bale, or whatever sparks our fantasy.
In addition, if you get it wrong, act, Assad uses CW again, how do you then not escalate? As you say, when do you stop?
@David_herdson - "FWIW, I believe much greater effort should be put into getting international bodies to declaring that a war crime and crime against humanity has occurred in Syria, and to demanding that those individuals responsible face justice in a court of law, and have diplomatic accreditation withdrawn, where relevant. That is a diplomatic process that might just stand a chance of success, while not killing more people in Syria and not improving the chances of some very dodgy rebel groups."
FWIW, I agree with you entirely and would much prefer to see this avenue taken by America, et al'.
I entirely agree with your analysis of the development of thinking on the right/obligation to intervene in the face of gross violations of human rights. Unfortunately, this thinking has not been paralleled with clear thinking on the legal, moral and political consequences of the UN failing to act to defend its own Charter and rules.
The Security Council concept was pretty much _designed_ to allow the UN to fail to act to defend its own charter and rules, wasn't it? It's a bunch of (then) powerful countries that all have a veto so they can protect their client states.
The obvious solution is more independent international institutions that can act without Security Council vetos, but it's hard to see the US agreeing to those, because the US can wield arbitrary power under the current system, and isn't particularly interested in strengthening the rule of law.
Act with what? The whole reason why the five UNSCPM have vetoes is because they are ones with the power to act. (Though it's worth noting that originally, the UN was meant to have military forces under its own command, rather than acting as a non-paying commissioning agent).
Comments
Oh, by-the-bye, it is an Oz election day. Your freckin' West-Country "groundwork" and "Al-Gore Rythms" failed. Suck It Up!!! *
* Apologies for the Surbitonisms....
we bombed Dresden and killed a lot there too
When was the last time in the UK that the government of the day gassed 1400 of its citizens, 400 being children,
Ed Miliband's party reforms could now turn into a Clause 4 moment: Hugh Gaitskell's Clause 4 moment of 1960 (negotiated climbdown), that is
@sundersays
Ed Miliband's party reforms could now turn into a Clause 4 moment: Hugh Gaitskell's Clause 4 moment of 1960 (negotiated climbdown), that is
Exclusive: George Osborne ready for Lloyds share sale as soon as next week, sources close to process say. Full story: bit.ly/1aVbdJu
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/emon/
I don;t really see how it can have.
Only we would call that terrorism, of course - an attack on our way of life.
I don't want to start a debate on abortion, but surely you can see that, to another (hypothetical) society which believes that unborn children count, our values on that issue leave a lot to be desired.
The Syrian civil war is killing lots of children anyway, but we weren't bothered about that until the gas business.
@toadmeister: British Labour Party polled lowest share of the vote since 1983 at 2010 election; Swedish Social Democrats lowest since 1921
@toadmeister: At the last European election, the German Social Democrats polled lowest share of the vote since WW2. The Left is in meltdown everywhere...
Nothing to see here...
Owen Jones logic of the day "We've closed down two places poor people can get emergency money to tell everyone how bad it is being poor"
1972 is history: Even the 'Septics weren't too bothered about the death of a few bog-trotting Marxist sympathisers. Only the EU would intervene now: How many battalions do they have...?
Rather unpredictable (alas!) qualifying in Monza. Quite entertaining, if not profitable (my tip was wrong, but I was more or less evens due to taking a few pounds laying Grosjean at 1.4 to reach Q3).
The big story, though, isn't Red Bull, Hulkenberg, or Hamilton. It's Alonso. Based on what I heard at the end of the BBC prog, we *might* see Raikkonen replace Alonso, or even both Ferrari drivers leave.
I was thinking about whether it would have any bearing on the political debate here. Abbott is pretty radical on climate change and immigration, for example.
And don`t post about issues about which you have little knowledge.
Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch 42m
Aust election public sick of public sector workers and phony welfare scroungers sucking life out of economy.Others nations to follow in time
What is ‘pretty radical’ about that?
Seems like a consensus there
This is the crux of the matter: the so called United Nations is a useless body. It always was so, when it only had 50 odd members, despite well meaning attempts in its early days to become something more than a debating society. How one expects 191 countries to agree on anything, is itself a delusion of the supposed mighty. There will always be groups of countries that will block anything a rival group wants or proposes. No; the UN is dead! Something like that living corps, Obama.
Can you build an old road? Surely it will be maintained or 'rebuilt'.
If it is, then imho, I’m sure they will be the only party that is.
So a phoney war against phoney weapons driven by phoney intelligence of two war-mongering countries. Where is the prosecution of the intelligence chiefs of the two countries?
There are other cultural issues which could be made the excuse. Suppose a country with great military might decided we would be better off under communism, say, or under Sharia law.
My point is that "Our Values" is a Pandora's Box as a reason for military action.
I am sorry I am unable to make myself clear.
I thought Kinnock, Callaghan or Wilson. But Gaitskill! RedEd is showing his socialist roots.
Ashton says #EU agrees strong evidence #Syrian government carried out #chemical attack on civilians http://reut.rs/18JXG1t @EUHighRepSpox
Still not compelling enough for Ed, who never acts rashly. Like Falkirk.
2) More evidence for the left that cheer-leading mass immigration of low-skilled labour is cheer-leading economic warfare against their own voters. It won't matter in the long-term as the original working class population is replaced but it will make things difficult for them until then.
http://t.co/asvT6DFHjZ
"The argument advanced is that the action is justified by the Duty to Protect"
The problem with that argument is
1) the entirely foreseeable consequences of toppling Assad and letting Hague's Hearteaters loose on western Syria as those people ought to be covered by any duty to protect as well,
2) the total silence from the pro-chaos lobby over the massacres in Egypt.
Sick Britain @SickBritain1 4m
@Conservatives Probably cheaper than the amount of OUR money @David_Cameron is throwing at Al Qaeda Terror Groups at the moment
Labour will select in your seat on October 27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon
After 1930 it appears that the flag was the one currently used by the FSA.
It's less than [Insert Party Here] wasted paying £[Insert BigNumber] to give gold plated [Silly Thing] to [Groups Who Do Badly In Focus Groups]
The fool who posted that reply presumably thinks it was witty/clever/cutting so let's not burst his tragic bubble. It's a kindness thing.
'When is Mike back?
Sadly this site is just an eco chamber of the same few Tory posters. Hopefully on his return he will sort it out.'
Never mind, Ed's having a good year.
Send for Yvette she is (moderated) brilliant!
Ed M is crap.
tweet tweet.
But in a few exchanges on that thread, I've almost convinced myself that tax-funding would be a good thing after all!
They're not all first line combat though. Bear in mind for example that Lithuania provide the really exciting stuff - the water purification experts. Our current battle group will be going into battle armed with assault-spanners and medium-range drain cleaner.
The whole thing is a fantastic waste of money. Sweden is in the current group. When they last did their 6 month stint back in 2008 (as leaders) it cost them 1.2 billion Swedish kronor (app. 150,000,000 euros) and the Battle Group wasn't used for anything.
The first is the defence of international law, to whit the Chemical Weapons Convention, the 1925 Geneva Protocol and, to the extent that these are now enshrined in it, customary international law. If the world fails to react, effectively half a century of arms control and disarmament efforts are torn up, not to mention efforts to develop international humanitarian law (the rules of war)
The second justification is (US) national security - failure to act would undermine the CWC and the 1925 GP, and thus the ban on both the possession and use of chemical weapons, which would be a threat to US (and other States Parties') national security given that they have foregone their arsenals of CW (and probably scaled back their spending on CW defences and research into such defenses). It is this threat to national security that would then justify unilateral action without UN sanction (at least that is the logic, whether you accept the point or not).
When Obama talks about the international red line, it is the first point. When he talks about the legal basis for intervention without UN sanction, it is the second.
I accept that the general public may be debating this matter based on other parameters, such as the rather absurd imperialist one you attempt to make. (France is the sole depositary power for the 1925 Geneva Protocol and has long been very vocal and protective of the ban on CW use contained in it - that is why it takes such a high profile stance on this issue). But those other issues are not what is the central point of the debate amongst policy-makers as to whether there is a need and a justification to act. Rather, they feature on whether to act, given the fallout such other considerations may engender.
As you rightly point out, of the potential winners in Syria at the moment, none are attractive to the international community and this is the principal drag on calls for action.
Betting PostWell, qualifying was entertaining, but I was entirely wrong. Ho hum. For the race, I've backed Red Bull to get a double podium at 2.1 with Ladbrokes:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/italy-pre-race.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/ed-miliband-policy-syria-right
"RD. Medecins Sans Frontiers reported 355 dead in total. Presume they (MSF) are neutral. Still a terrible high number of course. But the "1400" is a U.S. "estimate"."
I believe the MSF estimate was of those passing through the hospitals they help staff. Here is the quote from the BBC:
"Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died."
David, I have updated the version of this post I made to LIAMT in the dark hours of the night a couple of days ago.
The "Duty to Protect" argument is wider than the specific UN "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" initiative but both are the product of a fifty year trend within and outside the UN towards the legitimisation of military intervention on humanitarian grounds.
"Lawful" and "legitimate" are not always the same. Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, in their book on the late 20th century debate on intervention, "give an account of the historical dichotomy between positive and natural law. They distinguish between 'restrictionists', who adhere to the dominant interpretation of positive law that prohibits intervention, and 'counter-restrictionists', who argue that state sovereignty is not absolute and intervention is allowed for the purpose of preventing atrocities, even when those atrocities occur within the borders of the responsible state." [Seybolt]
Those who argue that military intervention is only legal if authorised by the UNSC are 'restrictionist' in this definition and they base their case on 'positive law'. But it is political leaders and legislators who set such positive law, who create courts to adjudicate upon such law, and, who accept or reject their jurisdiciton. International law on intervention therefore follows from and adapts to changing political consensus and will rather than leads it. This applies as much to the UN itself as it does to individual sovereign states.
The UN, under Kofi Annan, has adapted and advance its position on intervention since the debates on Kosovo and Iraq (2003). Post Kosovo, Annan saw the need to respond to the threat of regional alliances, such as NATO replacing, or at least bypassing, the role of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
In the early noughties, Annan confronted the UN Assembly with calls to "forge unity" around basic principles of intervention in cases of extreme need:
"if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebenica - to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity? In essence the problem is one of responsibility in circumstances in which universally accepted human rights are being violated on a massive scale we have a responsibility to act."
Canada responded by setting up the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty which articulated the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. R2P shifted emphasis from protecting the sovereign rights of nations towards towards asserting the duties and responsibilities of individual nations and the international community to all citizens.
[to be continued]
Academic writers asserted that the "point has now been reached where the just war principles have wide currency as a political and moral, but not legal, framework for judging the legitimacy of military intervention for human protection purposes. These guidelines are presented as a complement to positive law and the strong presumption of non-intervention" [Seybolt].
These moral and political principles have advanced ahead of the legal framework, although the UN has sought to document and seek approval for the new thinking. Annan's 'High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change' document endorsed "the emerging norm that there is an international responsibility to protect [civilians] ... in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent".
Annan took this forward to the General Assembly under the document 'In larger freedom' at the 2005 UN World Summit where the General Assembly "endorsed the concept of the sovereign responsibility to protect civilians, including by using force as a last resort against states that do not live up to that responsibility".
This is the background to the claims of government legal officers in the US, UK and other western states, that intervention in exceptional and qualifying cases is, at least, legitimate and, arguably, lawful provided it meets the guidlelines developed and agreed in and around the UN over the past couple of decades. It also lies behind Obama's repeated accusation that Syria has "breached international norms".
This position won't meet the approval of the 'restrictionists', such as Putin (but is his position on Syria consistent with that on Georgia?) but it does have the current consensus support of the legal and moral commentariat and, more importantly, the leading Western powers, both within and without the UN.
An oasis in a desert of some of the most inane posts I've ever read on here.I don't happen to agree with your solutions but at least it was written by a grown up.
@DanHannanMEP 3h
Many congratulations to @TonyAbbottMHR, and to Australians for electing him: that great country is, I feel certain, entering a golden age
@David_Cameron 2h
I've just phoned and congratulated the new Australian PM @TonyAbbottMHR - it'll be great working with another centre right leader.
@IainDale 3h
If only @KRuddMP had the manners and good grace of his predecessor @JuliaGillard. His concession speech didn't even mention her. A disgrace. (Although Gillard did not mention Rudd in her speech on election night 2010)
@JuliaGillard 3h
Congrats to Mr Abbott & Mr Truss for leading their parties to victory. I wish them & their teams well. It's always an honour to serve. JG
@JuliaGillard 3h
A tough night for Labor. But a spirited fight by Kevin, Albo, George + the whole team. My thoughts are with you all. JG
Oh God. Wouldn't have a lot of confidence asking Tony Abbott to form a conga, let alone a Government. What have you done, Australia?!
@IainDale 4h
Delighted to see the ego that is called Julian Assange has fallen flat on his face in the Aussie election. A cooper-bottomed shit.
@RolandRudd 5h
Turning back foreign boats, expensive federal parental schemes and outdated social conservatism win the day in a depressing Aussie election
@OwenJones84 7h
Oh, Australia
@afneil 5h
Abbott is clear winner in Oz but not quite a meltdown for Labor. Rudd has mitigated losses.
@toadmeister 2h
The Australian Labour Party polled its lowest share of the vote for 100 years, adding to global anti-socialist trend
@TimMontgomerie 1h
Big congrats to @LoughnaneB for his immense role in Abbott win. Great campaigner, big brain and gentleman. Sometimes the good guys do win.
I entirely agree with your analysis of the development of thinking on the right/obligation to intervene in the face of gross violations of human rights. Unfortunately, this thinking has not been paralleled with clear thinking on the legal, moral and political consequences of the UN failing to act to defend its own Charter and rules.
I do know that inaction will have serious consequences, but so too will every course of action I can envisage.
Makes you proud to be British..
@afneil 5h Abbott is clear winner in Oz but not quite a meltdown for Labor. Rudd has mitigated losses.
Andrew Neil, as always, captures the real political implications for the UK.
I am beginning to think Neil is as perceptive a political commentator as Dan Hodges.
Vaguely on-topic, it's fair to say France has intervened on a number of occasions in her former African colonies such as the Central African Republic though the Algerian episode was far from distinguished.
I'm still struggling to see how the Syria vote has been some kind of disaster for Ed Miliband. Those not well disposed toward him and his Party have been frantically spinning and blogging over the past ten days to this effect but from where I'm sitting David Cameron instigated the sequence of events and is the principal casualty.
Yet if we are to believe some on here the Commons defeat was actually a triumph for the Prime Minister. Yeah, right.....
http://www.cityam.com/article/1378429690/winners-and-losers-great-bond-market-crash-2013
Another fascinating piece from Allister Heath showing that while higher gilt yields will help reduce pension fund deficits, the big loser of the Bond Market Crash is the good old taxpayer through QE which is increasingly looking like a huge strategic error of judgement.
Interest rates are going to have to rise and while we all know why Osborne wants to keep them low until at least May 2015, the rises, when they come, could well have a sobering effect on some people's economic exuberance.
Thanks for your considered response. I'd agree with much of what you write. It's about the 10% where we disagree that pushes me in entirely the other direction.
You write "If the world fails to react ...". There are two points there. The first is that 'the world' has and will fail to react. The UN is paralysed, the Arab League is split, the G20 is divided. If any response to the regime's use of chemical weapons does take place, it will be a coalition of the willing acting on their own initiative, not the spearhead of global opinion.
The second is that the reaction must have a purpose: to what end is it employed? I've not heard anyone be clear on this, other than 'to deter' future use - but that's a psychological rather than military or political end and pretty much impossible to be assured that it's been achieved. In any case, I don't accept that it's realistic to separate the reaction to the use of CW from the situation on the ground, nor am I comfortable with the implicit condoning of civil war sans chemical weapons.
FWIW, I believe much greater effort should be put into getting international bodies to declaring that a war crime and crime against humanity has occurred in Syria, and to demanding that those individuals responsible face justice in a court of law, and have diplomatic accreditation withdrawn, where relevant. That is a diplomatic process that might just stand a chance of success, while not killing more people in Syria and not improving the chances of some very dodgy rebel groups.
As for the use of CW, it's happened before and may well happen again. Let's use the rapier rather than the bludgeon and respond to the individuals who authorised and commissioned the action, even if that takes longer.
The obvious solution is more independent international institutions that can act without Security Council vetos, but it's hard to see the US agreeing to those, because the US can wield arbitrary power under the current system, and isn't particularly interested in strengthening the rule of law.
We actually cross-posted as I hadn't read your posts when I posted mine, so it is interesting seeing us both approaching the same problem from different angles.
To my mind, the most difficult "just war" principle facing Obama in intervening in Syria, is for the intervention to have "a reasonable prospect of success".
The right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort and proportional means requirements are easier to fulfill. But reasonable prospects of success?
Dropping bombs and firing missiles for a limited period at limited targets as a warning hardly fulfills this requirement. What Matt in his cartoon captioned: "We want you to fly over Syria, wag your finger at Assad, and fly back".
It is difficult to see how 'limited, proportional and targetted' strike can degrade Assad's CW delivery capabilities. That is why I found it interesting that Kerry was asking the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (?) not to include a "no boots on the ground" restriction, saying that such intervention may be necessary to securely destroy Assad's stocks and facilities.
I would be interested to hear from you how feasible it would be to destroy CW stocks and facilities by means of remote attack.
Unless this is the case, then surely the right move for Obama is to give out a specific ultimatum on verifiable decommissioning of facilities and secure destruction of stocks, with the consequences of non-compliance being military intervention of wider scope and longer duration. The goal of such intervention would remain the same: to destroy Assad's capability of deploying CW but it would recognise that this can only be achieved by means of a more comprehensive destruction of his general military capabilities.
I am coming at this from a different direction, say to Cordesman and McCain, by keeping the goal narrow but the action wide. But the end may be the same: if a state won't cease and desist using CW maybe the only realistic sanction is to change the regime.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/06/is-there-an-alternative-to-bombing-syria-rep-chris-smith-thinks-so/
For those who want action, they want it to be sufficiently painful to deter Assad from using CW again and to warn off any other bad guys from doing so, while being limited in scope and duration - Goldilocks' porridge. The trouble is knowing the effect one wants to produce and knowing how to produce exactly that are not the same thing. Otherwise we'd all be billionaires, or Nobel Laureates, or world famous artists, or Gareth Bale, or whatever sparks our fantasy.
In addition, if you get it wrong, act, Assad uses CW again, how do you then not escalate? As you say, when do you stop?
FWIW, I agree with you entirely and would much prefer to see this avenue taken by America, et al'.