US, France and UK fire missiles at Syria

[breadandcheese]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And (I know this drum has been beaten before but) why aren't we pulling up the Saudis for bombing Yemen or having a word with the Israelis (and the Palestinians, come to that) for...I dunno, pretty much every human rights abuse under the sun?

 

Add consistency to transparency above as essential when considering such things.

It's rather over the top to say that Israel has committed every human rights abuse under the sun.

 

But I would hope that if Israel used chemical weapons like Chlorine gas or Sarin gas on areas with civilians hiding, that we would would not veto any UN resolutions or investigations

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, breadandcheese said:

It's rather over the top to say that Israel has committed every human rights abuse under the sun.

 

But I would hope that if Israel used chemical weapons like Chlorine gas or Sarin gas on areas with civilians hiding, that we would would not veto any UN resolutions or investigations

Yeah, and neither have the Palestianians. That was some hyperbole based on the situation there being so needlessly stupid tbh.

 

I would like to think that the UK wouldn't veto such a resolution (off the top of my head I rather think they'd abstain), but I'm inclined to think that the US just might - in the same way that Russia did recently for the Syrians.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

If it was just Iraq I might have some sympathy for that argument, but the intervention in Libya has left another failed state in its wake.

 

At the end of the day, it's not our (the West) business to be the World's policeman, judge, jury and executioner, especially as our motives are transparently not based on altruism but rather geo-politics. Where were we when the genocide in Rwanda was happening? Where are we now a similar genocide is befalling the Rohingya in Myanmar?

The main problem is though, if The West don't do it then you can bet your bottom dollar that Russia or China will and for all its flaws I'd far rather it was the US doing the policing than Russia or China in their current regimes.

 

It's the same issue with Saudi Arabia - I'd far rather the US was profiting from selling weapons than the inevitable profiting Russia or China would be doing instead.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The main problem is though, if The West don't do it then you can bet your bottom dollar that Russia or China will and for all its flaws I'd far rather it was the US doing the policing than Russia or China in their current regimes.

 

It's the same issue with Saudi Arabia - I'd far rather the US was profiting from selling weapons than the inevitable profiting Russia or China would be doing instead.

As much as that is accurate (and it is), it's too much of an excuse for the continuation of Might Makes Right amongst the leading nations tbh.

 

I'd like to hope that idealism at the upper end of international politics isn't entirely dead.

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As much as that is accurate (and it is), it's too much of an excuse for the continuation of Might Makes Right amongst the leading nations tbh.

 

I'd like to hope that idealism at the upper end of international politics isn't entirely dead.

Was it ever alive?

[Rogstanley]

Why aren't the likes of Germany, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc getting involved? Seems that some western countries are more than happy to take a back seat and I don't see why we can't do the same.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

Was it ever alive?

Damn good question.

 

Cynic in me says probably not, sadly.

[Salisbury Fox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Russia has used the veto most overall, the US the most since 1970, and since 1992 they're roughly on a par.

Which shows how ridiculous Labour's position is on Syria by insisting that they would only back an intervention if this was supported by the UN. I would have more respect for them if they admitted that there would be no circumstances that they would intervene.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

Why aren't the likes of Germany, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc getting involved? Seems that some western countries are more than happy to take a back seat and I don't see why we can't do the same.

If you believe that an intervention is needed then why wouldn't you participate rather than let someone else do it for you.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

Why aren't the likes of Germany, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc getting involved? Seems that some western countries are more than happy to take a back seat and I don't see why we can't do the same.

Do you think intervention was warranted? If yes, then why the hell would you want to take a back seat? These countries can only take a back seat because they've got the US protecting them in the first place. But if you see people being murdered you should take action - Turning a blind eye to mass murder and saying "oh someone else will deal with it" is tacitly allowing the committing of mass murder. If our government believes strongly enough that Assad needs to be shown even in some small way that we can't except him committing mass murder via chemical weapons on his own people and they can do that in a way which won't cause escalation (or even if they do feel there is a risk then they should still act in the case of crimes heinous enough or when rogue governments are showing they are repeatedly happy to commit this while their arsenal and technological advancements to do so is only going to get stronger the more non-intervention happens) then of course our government should be taking action.

How the hell are Germany, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the ones with the morale high round here? It's the Kitty Genovese case and the bystander effect in real-life action. I would certainly like to live in a country where our government is one which is prepared to make difficult decisions and take responsibility for its own actions and doesn't delegate difficult decisions to other nations or just sit on the fence.

If our government said they didn't agree with the bombing so didn't participate then fair enough.But to publically back the attacks but sit back and allow others to dish them out despite being the second biggest Western power as Germany has done - nah, that's bollocks. I'd hope our government wouldn't be partaking in such bystander behaviour as that - how can you trust that government to make big decisions and take responsibility for those decisions as every government must do? (And I say that as someone who is a huge fan of Merkel and thinks she''s pretty much the greatest world leader of the 21st century so far).

Edited 15 April 2018 by Sampson

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Why aren't the likes of Germany, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc getting involved? Seems that some western countries are more than happy to take a back seat and I don't see why we can't do the same.

 

Germany don’t get involved because of their history.

 

Australia does from time to time, as does Canada, but their forces aren’t the size to be much use. 

 

New Zealand’s army is essentially sheep ? 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

If you believe that an intervention is needed then why wouldn't you participate rather than let someone else do it for you.

 

Am I right in remembering that you are a serviceman?

 

I can accept risking our forces' lives in the defence of the realm, or in defence of an ally. I can possibly accept it (under certain hypothetical circumstances) in the cause of British interests abroad. I do not accept it meddling in other people's wars or playing at being the World's policeman.

 

What is your personal opinion as a serviceman? What is the consensus among servicemen in general?

 

26 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Do you think intervention was warranted? If yes, then why the hell would you want to take a back seat? These countries can only take a back seat because they've got the US protecting them in the first place. But if you see people being murdered you should take action - Turning a blind eye to mass murder and saying "oh someone else will deal with it" is tacitly allowing the committing of mass murder. If our government believes strongly enough that Assad needs to be shown even in some small way that we can't except him committing mass murder via chemical weapons on his own people and they can do that in a way which won't cause escalation (or even if they do feel there is a risk then they should still act in the case of crimes heinous enough or when rogue governments are showing they are repeatedly happy to commit this while their arsenal and technological advancements to do so is only going to get stronger the more non-intervention happens) then of course our government should be taking action.

How the hell are Germany, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the ones with the morale high round here? It's the Kitty Genovese case and the bystander effect in real-life action. I would certainly like to live in a country where our government is one which is prepared to make difficult decisions and take responsibility for its own actions and doesn't delegate difficult decisions to other nations or just sit on the fence.

If our government said they didn't agree with the bombing so didn't participate then fair enough.But to publically back the attacks but sit back and allow others to dish them out despite being the second biggest Western power as Germany has done - nah, that's bollocks. I'd hope our government wouldn't be partaking in such bystander behaviour as that - how can you trust that government to make big decisions and take responsibility for those decisions as every government must do? (And I say that as someone who is a huge fan of Merkel and thinks she''s pretty much the greatest world leader of the 21st century so far).

3

 

Which brings us back to the question that nobody seems to answer: How do you justify not only failing to intervene in the Saudis war on Yemen but actively supporting them doing it? Are we not turning a blind eye on that?

[Rogstanley]

40 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Do you think intervention was warranted? If yes, then why the hell would you want to take a back seat? These countries can only take a back seat because they've got the US protecting them in the first place. But if you see people being murdered you should take action - Turning a blind eye to mass murder and saying "oh someone else will deal with it" is tacitly allowing the committing of mass murder. If our government believes strongly enough that Assad needs to be shown even in some small way that we can't except him committing mass murder via chemical weapons on his own people and they can do that in a way which won't cause escalation (or even if they do feel there is a risk then they should still act in the case of crimes heinous enough or when rogue governments are showing they are repeatedly happy to commit this while their arsenal and technological advancements to do so is only going to get stronger the more non-intervention happens) then of course our government should be taking action.

How the hell are Germany, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the ones with the morale high round here? It's the Kitty Genovese case and the bystander effect in real-life action. I would certainly like to live in a country where our government is one which is prepared to make difficult decisions and take responsibility for its own actions and doesn't delegate difficult decisions to other nations or just sit on the fence.

If our government said they didn't agree with the bombing so didn't participate then fair enough.But to publically back the attacks but sit back and allow others to dish them out despite being the second biggest Western power as Germany has done - nah, that's bollocks. I'd hope our government wouldn't be partaking in such bystander behaviour as that - how can you trust that government to make big decisions and take responsibility for those decisions as every government must do? (And I say that as someone who is a huge fan of Merkel and thinks she''s pretty much the greatest world leader of the 21st century so far).

Clearly Germany are comfortable with doing nothing, as are Holland, Belgium, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Japan... the list goes on and on, we are very much in the minority here.

 

What I'm interested in understanding is what mindset allows those other nations to be comfortable in sitting back and doing nothing or, the reverse, is there something unique about our mindset that compels us to action? 

 

Is it for example a manifestation of a desire to still have a global empire, or something like that? Why do we intervene in some cases but not in others?

 

Do you honestly believe deep down that all is at it seems in situations like this?

Edited 15 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[DJ Barry Hammond]

15 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Clearly Germany are comfortable with doing nothing, as are Holland, Belgium, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Japan... the list goes on and on, we are very much in the minority here.

 

What I'm interested in understanding is what mindset allows those other nations to be comfortable in sitting back and doing nothing or, the reverse, is there something unique about our mindset that compels us to action? 

 

Is it for example a manifestation of a desire to still have a global empire, or something like that? Why do we intervene in some cases but not in others?

 

Do you honestly believe deep down that all is at it seems in situations like this?

 

Being ‘world police’ is the public context that’s portrayed in these scenario’s by government - but there are myriad of other more prominent motives behind the major nations actions, which relate to history, power, geographical significance and a whole lot more besides.

 

This current squabble around Syria has much more to do with who influences and therefore largely controls that region than anything else. A quick look at the map and surrounding nations will tell you a lot about why Syria is a pawn in a long running game of chess between Russia and the US.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Being ‘world police’ is the public context that’s portrayed in these scenario’s by government - but there are myriad of other more prominent motives behind the major nations actions, which relate to history, power, geographical significance and a whole lot more besides.

 

This current squabble around Syria has much more to do with who influences and therefore largely controls that region than anything else. A quick look at the map and surrounding nations will tell you a lot about why Syria is a pawn in a long running game of chess between Russia and the US.

This, especially the last part.

 

Rather than taking a side, perhaps it's time to look to smash the board, before the game, one day in the future, results in trouble for everyone.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Sampson Just to reiterate, because you made a point about Germany there that’s very misguided.

 

They don’t get involved militarily in these sort of things because of the countries history. That may change in the future, indeed their army has been on the fringes of UN operations - but it’s not consciously right for a German army to intervene overseas yet.

Edited 15 April 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Salisbury Fox]

42 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Am I right in remembering that you are a serviceman?

 

I can accept risking our forces' lives in the defence of the realm, or in defence of an ally. I can possibly accept it (under certain hypothetical circumstances) in the cause of British interests abroad. I do not accept it meddling in other people's wars or playing at being the World's policeman.

 

What is your personal opinion as a serviceman? What is the consensus among servicemen in general?

 

 

Which brings us back to the question that nobody seems to answer: How do you justify not only failing to intervene in the Saudis war on Yemen but actively supporting them doing it? Are we not turning a blind eye on that?

Yes I am still serving.  The Service Personnel I know are generally supportive of the action taken, whether that is fully representative though I am not sure.  Personally I am very wary of getting involved again in that region but I believe that the dangers of doing nothing outweigh those of taking action.

 

I am concerned by the growing influence that Russia and Iran have in the region and can't see any good coming from it.  I believe that the Yemen situation highlights the danger of leaving Iranian influence in the region unchecked given their arming of Houthi rebels. Whilst I am no fan of the Saudi's, I do believe that the danger of instability there would have disastrous effects given that it is a hotbed of Sunni extremism.  

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Which brings us back to the question that nobody seems to answer: How do you justify not only failing to intervene in the Saudis war on Yemen but actively supporting them doing it? Are we not turning a blind eye on that?

I think the Syria issue is getting distorted. It was a very simple issue in my book. Do we have intelligence that Assad used chemical weapons? If so, then he needs to be shown that there is a price for this as they are beyond accepted norms and their use will never be considered legitimate. It's not realpolitik, it's about going beyond what is acceptable.

 

We've not gone in to affect the balance of the war, but make him think twice about using them. If he keeps using them, then maybe we will have to do something but I expect Russia to now keep him in check.

 

In answer to your Saudi Yemen question. This is an issue of realpolitik. Politically, it is justifiable in that it's the Saudis trying to stop Iranian attempts to control the Middle East. This may not be a bad thing in that hindering Iran's ambitions may stop what is the end result of Iran's ambitions and that is some awful Iran-Israeli war. In terms of how Saudi Arabia are carrying out the military operation, yes, that is horrible.

[Buce]

41 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I think the Syria issue is getting distorted. It was a very simple issue in my book. Do we have intelligence that Assad used chemical weapons? If so, then he needs to be shown that there is a price for this as they are beyond accepted norms and their use will never be considered legitimate. It's not realpolitik, it's about going beyond what is acceptable.

 

We've not gone in to affect the balance of the war, but make him think twice about using them. If he keeps using them, then maybe we will have to do something but I expect Russia to now keep him in check.

 

In answer to your Saudi Yemen question. This is an issue of realpolitik. Politically, it is justifiable in that it's the Saudis trying to stop Iranian attempts to control the Middle East. This may not be a bad thing in that hindering Iran's ambitions may stop what is the end result of Iran's ambitions and that is some awful Iran-Israeli war. In terms of how Saudi Arabia are carrying out the military operation, yes, that is horrible.

 

There is nothing Saudi would like better than to see Iran and Israel kicking lumps out of each other. Don't be fooled by their current cooperation - it is one very much of convenience.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Yes I am still serving.  The Service Personnel I know are generally supportive of the action taken, whether that is fully representative though I am not sure.  Personally I am very wary of getting involved again in that region but I believe that the dangers of doing nothing outweigh those of taking action.

 

I am concerned by the growing influence that Russia and Iran have in the region and can't see any good coming from it.  I believe that the Yemen situation highlights the danger of leaving Iranian influence in the region unchecked given their arming of Houthi rebels. Whilst I am no fan of the Saudi's, I do believe that the danger of instability there would have disastrous effects given that it is a hotbed of Sunni extremism.  

Also pissed off your local Zizzi closed down. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Try this one: https://articulatelive.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/take-two-putin-condemns-us-uk-frances-attack-on-syria/

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Then try this one: https://articulatelive.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/take-two-allies-combine-to-strike-chemical-weapons-facilities/

 

Thoughts?

[Buce]

Labour releases expert opinion saying Syrian air strikes unlawful

Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader, has released a five-page legal opinion arguing the Syria airstrikes were illegal. It is from Dapo Akande, professor of public international law at Oxford University.

Here is Akande’s summary of his conclusions.

"In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:

 

1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.

 

2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.

 

3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.

 

4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action."

[Wymsey]

Why are we involved in this?

I know the UK is known for helping third-world countries in disasters etc, but this is being involved in someone else's problem and especially with Russia being in it as well, especially at a time when relations with them are declining at some pace, and it could make the situation toxic and out of hand.

[Stadt]

59 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

and it could make the situation toxic and out of hand.

It already is.

 

That's the issue with proxy wars though, if there wasn't any western intervention Assad and the Kremlin rule the roost.