You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Can't we get SAS/Seals etc. to liquidate Assad, his bitch wife and his command line?
Can’t we get SAS/Seals etc. to liquidate Assad, his bitch wife and his command line?
You mean induce some sort of regime change?
I'm struggling to think of any recent examples of that going badly, so yea, why not.
Derek have you considered the DM ? they are very gung ho - perhaps you can even refer to women as bitches there as well...who knows?
Mefty we are going round in circles we both have a point but IMHO its weak to make an appeal to her democratic mandate whilst also knowing she does not have majority support of the population.
Has there been a pm that has had "the majority support of the population" these last 50 years?
In general no but on one off issues yes
Its clear May , or the tories, are not alone in going against public opinion to wage war/bomb people though of course Dave did have a vote and respect it as did blair* who only won because Tories supported him*
* more tories than labour MP's iirc and I am not sure how anyone can claim he had a manadate to act as he did as it was clear the populous did not support it and that is before we get to his dossier of lies
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too ! i mean he gassing his own ppl , we the rest of the world have a moral obligation to stop anyone from doing it ! all this crap about its for oil , want a war , bla bla bla , most western countries have enough issues without making up lies to attack other places.
JY - are you sure this specific action is "against public opinion?" I think these are specific circumstance stimulated by Assad's abominable attack on civilians using illegal weapons. I don't think you can assume the public will be as anti this as they have been with some of the other actions.
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too
A truly rubbish analogy. Given the complexity of the situation it's not remotely the same. And let's be brutally honest here, history tells us that stepping in when evil despots do bad things to their own people usually ends up with far more people suffering
Can you think of an example of when this type of intervention has ended up going well, in the last 25 years ?
I think the dodgy dossier, the outcome of intervention, the rise of ISIL, the mess in Libya means the public is generally against our military exploits and for a very good reason - survey this week was 22 %for 43 % against
£6.3 millions worth of cruise missiles, nice. Swear filter prevents me posting my true feelings.
JY – are you sure this specific action is “against public opinion?” I think these are specific circumstance stimulated by Assad’s abominable attack on civilians using illegal weapons.
The scepticism is about what this has achieved, it's been well reported that planes were moved to Russian bases before, the strikes were on the cards so anything else could easily have been moved too.
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too
What petulant bufoonery.. When are the school holidays over?
Did we care while refugees were drowning in the sea?
Did we care while the last 400 000 died?
Of course not!
yes , kosovo, bosnia , mali , ukraine , even iraq and afghan will be better for it in 20 odd years , so your saying lets just turn a blind eye to chemical weapons usage , next it will be nuclear weapons , ooh don't worry it was only a small one doesn't affect us .......
so your saying lets just turn a blind eye to chemical weapons usage , next it will be nuclear weapons , ooh don’t worry it was only a small one doesn’t affect us …….
is anybody saying that? Firing some cruise missiles doesn't change much. There is no plan in Syria.
Iraq is a perfect example of no clear plan other than get rid of Saddam which has cost countless lives and still , 15 years on from the invasion it's still a mess.
Can’t we get SAS/Seals etc. to liquidate Assad, his bitch wife and his command line?
National leaders don't like that sort of thing, it would set a precedent. Killing thousands of proles is acceptable though, because they aren't in the 'club'.
As for all the posturing, it seems a bit cold war, after all Putin is a cold war beast. I am sure lines of communication are open with Russia. That way no one oversteps a mark and the propaganda machine in each country can claim a victory etc...
anybody that disagrees with the attack is either a hippy or has extremely questionable human values, i bet ur the type that walks past trouble when someone needs help too !
I am sure lines of communication are open with Russia. That way no one oversteps a mark and the propaganda machine in each country can claim a victory etc…
Indeed. I get the feeling the US had a private word with Russia before the "attack", even stating what they were going to hit. Strategic stuff and people moved safely out of the way, targets avoiding anything related to Russia. Result is achieving the goal in the west of having done something and for Syria and Russia of not being that bothered about it. Neither side has the stomach for a major war at the moment.
I am sure lines of communication are open with Russia.
Just follow @realdonaldtrump on twitter.
Not sure I could give a shit about a group (the Houthis) that has "death to the Jews" in it's main slogan, they make the Saudis look moderate.
Anyway, I'm sure you care just as much about Russia selling the Iranians arms and by extension supporting the loons in Yemen? Don't you?
Iraq is a perfect example of no clear plan other than get rid of Saddam which has cost countless lives and still , 15 years on from the invasion it’s still a mess.
It was a mess before, Saddams body count was as high as that of ISIS if you count the various wars he happily fought with every neighbour or ethnic minority that looked at him a bit funny.
We simply rearranged the mess as opposed to messing it up further.
We simply rearranged the mess instead of tidying it up.
Indeed, I'm interested why you chalk that up as a success?
Not sure I could give a shit about a group
As the thread has a heap of people deciding who matters I think that shows exactly where we are at.
Anyway we sent some missiles over, they went bang, like Nov 5th the show was good, the lasting impact?
Anyone care to let us know what blowing some stuff up (with enough warnings given to make sure they were probably mostly empty sheds) has changed the situation there.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity
However it's provided a diversion for Trump and his massive personal problems, given May a nice sabre rattle/
Anyway we sent some missiles over, they went bang, like Nov 5th the show was good, the lasting impact?
Anyone care to let us know what blowing some stuff up (with enough warnings given to make sure they were probably mostly empty sheds) has changed the situation there.
I think that it's helped remind every other would be despot out there, thinking of breaking an internationally recognised agreement not to use these weapons. We did the best we could do without risking starting WW3, we've pretty nicely humiliated the Russians and we've managed to turn most of the world against them. Even Merkel, that warmongering German agreed with the action taken.
I also think that a rather toxic brand of postmodern nihilism has crept into western leftwing thinking.
Indeed, I’m interested why you chalk that up as a success?
I don't count it as a success, more like evens. I don't get the idea that we ****ed Iraq, it was ****ed before and all the ethnic and ideological divides were there simmering away - and the only thing that kept the lid on it all was wanton callous violence and a few wars with the neighbours that were basically spectacular reboots of WW1 complete with trench warfare and mustard gas attacks.
I think that it’s helped remind every other would be despot out there, thinking of breaking an internationally recognised agreement not to use these weapons.
No, it's helped demonstrate that all the west is willing to do is either expel diplomats, or send over some increasingly easy to intercept missiles at low value targets.
Bombing people to try to stop them from bombing people just doesn't work - all it does is kill, maim and injure yet more people. Dealing with civil wars is damnably difficult stuff, I get that, but if you think yesterday's attack is a deterrent to anyone then you are simply deluded.
I don’t get the idea that we * Iraq, it was * before and all the ethnic and ideological divides were there simmering away
You know that was because of us, right?
So BloHard has written in the Sunday Telegraph “we bombed Syria to deter other countries from doing similar”
Glad that’s in Type, because the swivel eyed lying loon can’t delete the narrative he wrote (like he does in Twitter)
Genius right there that man, and you voted the lier in.. so in essence you are like him.
Well done.
I think that it’s helped remind every other would be despot out there, thinking of breaking an internationally recognised agreement not to use these weapons
Damm we should have done that years ago when he started using chemical weapons.
A song for you halfwit warmongers..
if you think yesterday’s attack is a deterrent to anyone then you are simply deluded.
Lots of things dont "work"* - laws dont stop people doing things [ nor the police , nor courts, nor prisons] but we dont not have these/do them because they dont "work". What we do is realise that they make the problem less worse than not doing this at all. Its the same thing here. Whether it will work ** is another debate
* I assume work here means never happen ever again
** reduce the likelihood of another chemical attack
. What we do is realise that they make the problem less worse than not doing this at all.
Do they? Or do they give the Russians the excuse to upgrade* the Syrian air defence systems to the latest model so that when we, or the Israelis, want to do something serious we can't?
* note by "upgrade" I don't mean in the sense of "forum upgrade" 🙂
You know that was because of us, right?
Neither the Sunni-Shia split in 632, the Zaidi revolt of 1905 or the Young Turk fevolution of 1908 were our fault. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire presented everyone with an impossible situation of seething inter-community hatred and violence that had been barely held in check for centuries - Sykes-Picot wasn’t the source of any of these problems, it was just the closest thing anyone could come to a disengagement plan. The resulting effects were no more our fault than the Bosnian Wars were ours or Russia’s fault for ending the Cold War.
Yes - thats the concern; that Russia now will allow Syria the use of their modern toys ... and then these modern toys pretty soon end up in the lap of some really nasty groups and aim them at stuff not flying over Syria.
Russia aren`t likely to go face to face with the West - they most definitely will be involved with doing something to bloody the Wests nose though.
Russia has already said as result of these actions it will now consider rolling out S300 and S400 to regional powers, be interesting to see how that won't escalate tensions if they roll it out completely to Syria, Iran and Lebanon.
Russia has already said as result of these actions it will now consider rolling out S300 and S400 to regional powers
At which point the policy of giving Israel carte blanche to do whatever they wanted for the last 50 years will start to look a bit dubious.
… and then these modern toys pretty soon end up in the lap of some really nasty groups and aim them at stuff not flying over Syria.
Yes, the Russians are building up a history of doing that, very recently in the Ukraine.
or send over some increasingly easy to intercept missiles at low value targets
Do you buy into everything the Russians say? It appears that not one was actually shot down, it'hard to hit manueveting terrain following missiles, with low observable characteristics. It"s the reason the Russians are developing more nuclear tipped cruise missiles
Also, Russia has stated S300 not S400 as they do not want to give their best technology away. Besides, who gives a shit an air defence system is only as good as how many missiles you can afford. Nato can afford a lot more cruise missiles and anti-radiation weapons. How many missiles do you think broke Russia can actually afford to give away?
The strike was proportionate and achieved what we could realistically carry out, and it had the backing of most of the world. As I said, ifthe attack went unpunished it would undermine the rule of law.
Do you buy into everything the Russians say?
Not at all, but neither do I cover myself in jism at the thought of bombing other people. Swings and roundabouts I guess.
Who of the dear departed is womble and how long with this iteration last?
Post history reminds me of a couple of the strongly opinioned... the love of coil over air is a hint I think.
Still it reminds us that the DM/Sun etc. do have a readership
As I said, ifthe attack went unpunished it would undermine the rule of law.
Rule of law? What law? Who is empowered to enforce it? Is it applied consistently, fairly and impartially? In this situation talking about the rule of law is laughable. Laws are only useful if everyone agrees with them and they can be enforced, otherwise they're pointless.
there is near unanimity about the non use of chemical weapons via the chemical weapons convention of which israel has signed but not ratified and only north korea, South sudan and Egypt [ UN states] have not signed. Its enforced by the organisation or the prohibition of Chemical weapons. It seems everyone does agree with it. I am surprised you were unaware of al of this this.
Is it applied fairy ? as far as I can tell it is - can you highlight any specific issues you have with them?
So the issue we have is enforcement when they have been used by a country that has destroyed them all, been inspected and declared free of them, and then uses them on its own people. What do you suggest then ? Strongly worded letter?Boris to give them a stern ticking off for this - what exactly? I am not sure who the legal authority would be here [ its not a UN agency] but there i assume but this cannot happen as Russia uses it veto so what do we do then?
Enforcement is a legitimate point but the law is clear as to whether its ok to keep them or use them - its not.
Before the enforcement issue arise there needs to be an investigation to establish whether, and by whom, the alleged chemical weapons have been used.
So the issue we have is enforcement when they have been used by a country that has destroyed them all, been inspected and declared free of them, and then uses them on its own people. What do you suggest then ? Strongly worded letter?Boris to give them a stern ticking off for this – what exactly? I am not sure who the legal authority would be here [ its not a UN agency] but there i assume but this cannot happen as Russia uses it veto so what do we do then?
Enforcement is the key. Unfortunately I don't see the latest action is enforcement in a meaningful way. Given the history of the situation and the number of times asaad has used them do you think its making a difference?
This is now a situation where the proxy war means nothing effective will happen until Russia give up on the regime
Before the enforcement issue arise there needs to be an investigation to establish whether, and by whom, the alleged chemical weapons have been used.
Sure - we could send in the OPCW. Oh - we are. Next week. How inconvenient.
Who of the dear departed is womble and how long with this iteration last?
TomW. Apparently his last login got lost behind the sofa during the forum “upgrade”
Junkyard hit the nail on the head in last few posts. My previous slightly belligerent post was merely in response to the silly, the sky is falling down attitude towards anything we do. "Oh noes.....May is going to start WW3" - didn't happen did it, as was so patently obvious! "Oh noes....S-300 might get rolled out......how dare you May!"......"Oh noes....teh Russianzz shot all our missiles down....we're shit;....so why bother". You are all constantly trying to find issues to fit your viewpoint, no matter how wild and silly.
And Scotroutes, the OCPW will still find evidence even if it's been blown up, if they can physically get to the sites - as the evidence won't have been totally vaporised.
It seems that every single western government, even the peace loving Germans, agree with the strike. These people have a far better grasp of international realpolitik than you lot.....even if you do think that Bojo and May are massive clueless idiots...the rest aren't. Try to remember that.
Bombing people to try to stop them from bombing people just doesn’t work – all it does is kill, maim and injure yet more people. Dealing with civil wars is damnably difficult stuff, I get that, but if you think yesterday’s attack is a deterrent to anyone then you are simply deluded.
Only if the intended targets, in this case industrial sites connected, apparently, with the ongoing production of chemicals due to be put into barrels then dropped out of Russian-supplied helicopters onto civilian targets, mainly medical and refugee centres. Said sites appear to have had no casualties, the strikes were designed to significantly reduce the regimes ability to mass-produce those chemicals. A policy I have no problem with, unlike the indiscriminate use of force against civilians, just because they don’t happen to be in full support of the despot in power.
Said sites appear to have had no casualties.
Sauce, proof or just your opinion...?
It seems that they have their own Bakdashists in the West, those who talk a lot about struggles without struggling themselves, fully isolated from human suffering and lacking humility that may lead them to listen to others, trying to learn from others, and identify with others. Our local Bakdashists lost any trace of independent political will in the course of 44 years now of servile alliance with the Assadi regime. But they are part of an international network of similar communists, holding meetings in Damascus and other capitals, enjoying free movement as loyal servants of the regime elite. We used to despise our Bakdashists for they are dull, docile, unprincipled, false witnesses to the history of our country and our people’s suffering. They became the living symbols of sluggish, wooden tongued middle class apparatchiks, whose aging leaders live in the center of the capital doing nothing apart from verbal attacks on imperialism from whom the latter comes out always intact.
But we committed a big mistake by underestimating them. While we were congratulating ourselves for our honesty, humility, creativity, we were under security surveillance, isolated from the younger sectors of our own people, while at the same time confined within the borders of our country, many of us without passports, never being able to meet political activists or intellectuals in other countries, the regime and its servants were controlling the masses within the country and were moving in the four directions of the globe, telling the imperialist powers that they are a strong bulwark against terrorism that springs naturally from their bestial subjects, telling the leftist in the West that they are a strong bulwark against imperialism, and the Syrian population that we should be united behind our historic leader in the face of Western plots. The state was an invincible jail for us, while it was an easy going and effective tool to reach the world for the Assadists and their vassals. Now we are paying heavily for our naivety.
It came to me as a shock that the left in the West sided with a brutal, corrupt and sectarian regime whose history in a half a century is the history of the formation of a predatory class that have been exploiting the impoverished and unprotected Syrians and squeezes the Syrian pubic resources, depositing its billions in foreign banks. They know that Hafez Assad ruled Syria for 30 years, do not they? They know that his Syria was transformed to a dynastic monarchy ruled by the Assad family, don’t they? They know that this is a grave breach of the very concept of the republic, don’t they? Why have they never uttered a word about it? I thought that we are the leftists who were active in democratic struggle in our country, and of course we are the one that will be supported by leftists in the more democratic countries. We were not.
One direct reason behind this curious situation can be that most of those who define themselves as anti-imperialists in the imperial center tend to annex our struggle to a regime change plan they attribute to the American administration. Their distinguished ignorance of Syria, its modern and contemporary history, its society, political life, political economy… makes us even more invisible to them, and makes them even more daring in seeing imperialism behind what is happening in Syria. But actually regime change in Syria was our own imitative as Syrians, we were the ones who wanted to overthrow their barbarian regime, ad this came in a very well known context: “the Arab Spring”. Do not they know that? Maybe they know but it is hard for them to recognize our political agency, that we can have revolutions and we aspire to freedom and equality.
Often it seems that people on the Left have misconceptions about Syria. How far is that true?
Too far. As I said above most leftist know almost nothing about Syria, and the little they know is either deeply flawed or absolutely false. And given the background above, it becomes a bit understandable though unforgivable. As true Bakdashists, their anti imperialism discourse moved from the field of analysis and politics to the realm of identity: concepts were transformed to symbols, a specific linguistic expressions that tell who you are, not what you are doing and how to offer a better understanding of the world. So when you talk about struggle against imperialism, this in no way means that you are really doing anything that will annoy imperialism. It just means that you like this pose for yourself and you belong to a group of your likes. And it seems that they those imperialists in the White House in the Pentagon, in Wall Street, are paying no slightest damn attention to you and your solipsistic anti imperialist world.
However, I think the traditional left all over the world failed to provide a genuine analysis about Syria, the Middle East, the Islamist nihilism, the Islamic question and the present world situation. They are nowhere aware of the urgent need to new approaches concerning these issues and many others. The word that rightly defines this situation is: CRISIS. And it is deepening. That is why I think there should be a paradigmatic shift, that transcends the inherited duality of left and right. In regard to Syria and Islamism, one hardly sees the difference.
And
For a better understanding, we should have a closer look at the dynamics at work in Syria after the revolution rather than to given identities pre existing fully fledged organizations. I suppose this is the method revolutionary minded people adopt. The revolution started as peaceful demonstrations that went for months, and was faced with sheer force by the regime from the very beginning. Syrian protesters asked for “international protection” in September 2011, almost 6 months in the revolution. In the collective perception of Syrians at that time was the floating idea that the “world” will not let them be killed the way they experienced 30 years ago when 20-30 thousand were killed in Hama in February 1982. One reason behind this illusion was the democratic rhetoric that was the accompanying narrative of the intervention in former Yugoslavia in 1998, in Iraq 2003, and in Libya 2011. Receb Tayyib Erdogan, the then prime minister of Turkey, said at that time that there will not be another Hama in Syria, and he mistakenly thought that he is supported in this by the Americans.
Well, the international protection did not come. Armed resistance was rising, and vulnerable people who were losing their trust of the world were relying on their arms now and clinging their trust to the Almighty. Thus a dynamic of radicalization, militarization, Islamzation was triggered. This means that people become radicalized without being so all the time. It means also that you become an Islamist while you were before not even an observant Muslim. You are carrying arms now, and before you were a farmer or a university student or unemployed person. But if it happens that you are already a radical militant Islamist you find yourself in a more natural habitat. Iraq was a laboratory in which the Assad regime helped in generating such enzymes. Saydnaya horrible torture jails were another laboratory from which the regime released many Jihadis less than three months after the eruption of the revolution.
http://www.yassinhs.com/2017/04/06/syria-the-left-and-the-world/
Ties in with the world view of Iraqi's that I've worked with in the past.
Would anyone ever likely take time to read that?
not even the poster 😉
I just think its a nice reposte of the attitude of many posters who post here. The attitude shown by not bothering to read that perfectly highlights the sneering ignorance of parts of the left here in the West.
Assad is effectively creating an IS enclave in Idlib by relocating the dispossessed and disaffected and will then use it as an excuse to effectively ethnic cleanse the region, protected by the Russians and under the noses of the West. Iran also using Hezbollah as a proxy, attempting to draw in Saudi and the Gulf States plus we have the tension between the western-backed Kurd and Turkey brewing in the west. UK had to do something to try and regain some military credibility with the US, plus we desperately need to generate more weapon sales with the Saudis and Gulf States to help sustain jobs in our post-Brexit-screwed economy. Putin also using it to create friction with Nato and a shop-window for military sales as he desperately needs hard currency whilst Opec deliberately keeps the oil price low to suppress the Iran/Russia axis. Growing tension in the ME obviously drives the oil price the other way. Working this one out is going to take more than international diplomacy and newspaper column inches....
The attitude shown by not bothering to read that perfectly highlights the sneering ignorance of parts of the left here in the West.
No, it just shows we’re too busy to waste our time reading your pitiful appeal to authority. No wonder you failed that uni assignment.
Have we pressed the “Big Bang” button yet ?
I think it’s time, don’t you.
The earth needs a reboot.
No, it just shows we’re too busy to waste our time reading your pitiful appeal to authority. No wonder you failed that uni assignment.
You mean take the time to see what Syrian academics and writers think? As opposed to a bien pensant opinion lifted directly from western commentators and your mates down the pub that like to shout "Tony Bliar"?
You mean take the time to see what Syrian academics and writers think? As opposed to a bien pensant opinion lifted directly from western commentators?
What have the missiles accomplished for people other than the ones selling missiles?
Well, unless you think French, British, American and seemingly the entirety of NATO's intelligence apparatus is lying to you - the degradation of Assads ability to produce chemical weapons.
Produce or deploy? There was enough warning to get everything moved around there, he has been gassing his people for near on 5 years now
Produce or deploy? There was enough warning to get everything moved around there, he has been gassing his people for near on 5 years no
Which is thanks to the apologists who keep demanding incontrovertible proof for absolutely everything, had this been 2003 Assads chemical weapons stockpile would have been bombed into non-existence in 2013.
It takes fairly specialised equipment and facilities to make the really nasty stuff, so it should make producing nerve agents harder. Chlorine based weapons are pretty easy to produce though.
We shall see there Tom, the bigger problem is that this is now a proxy war.
its been a proxy war for a while now - well since russia joined in on his side.
Sorry it's been one for a while, it really does change the options.
I assume those who loved the air strikes would be happy if we were launching cruise missiles into Russian factories?
I have no idea who you are addressing that leading question to.
What i think is that russia ,in general, has made it obvious what its MO is in terms of international relations.Unfortunately that means we have to act in ways that are far less than desirable. None of it is good, there is no good outcome either from action or inaction. I see nothing great about a new cold war.
Well, unless you think French, British, American and seemingly the entirety of NATO’s intelligence apparatus is lying to you
Given that it’s military intelligence we’re talking about here, why are you so gullible as to think they’re telling the unimpeachable truth to the public?
Well Russia has deployed Chemical weapons twice on UK soil. Some of the posters would suggest they need taught a lesson for that.
In general terms I have very little faith that the recent intervention will have any positive effect in Syria at all.
None of it is good, there is no good outcome either from action or inaction.
Quite. Which is why I’m not rabidly celebrating the impotent launch of these strikes.
again who is that leading statement aimed at ?
Is it some sort of ex pat virus you pick up in Australia?
Those who blindly back air strikes regardless of the outcome or intent. Not you junky your fine there unless your one of them? Quick test who got the most from the strieks Trump diverting attention from ****ing porn stars, May from Brexit, Assad from killing his own people or Whoever sells these?
Probably safest to trust those with democratic checks and balances and an independent media.
So not answering the question there Mefty, promotion straight to the cabinet there
It only requires a simple inference which is no doubt beyond some.
It only requires a simple inference which is no doubt beyond some.
It’s certainly bypassed you
Pray tell how so
I’ll let you figure it out. You seem to consider yourself a bright enough chap.
The russians MO is to ninfan any issue. The truth is an irrelevance to them everything is said to create the effect they want [ discord between allies. disagreement, muddy the waters, etc- ninfan wants someone to be upset/angry /annoyed with him for reasons I doubt even he understands] and what is true or false is not even considered by them.Like ninfan some of the statements they make are absurd. Its pointless to engage with them or what they say as you cannot win ; what they want is you to engage , what happens after that is irrelevant, on their terms - ludicrous, stupid, and dishonest ones they dont even believe.
what do Russia want in Syria and how is it different to what we want?
what do Russia want in Syria
To keep the Tartus naval base.
What i think is that russia ,in general, has made it obvious what its MO is in terms of international relations. Unfortunately that means we have to act in ways that are far less than desirable.
We have to act yes. But firing missiles into a foreign country with no plan and no consensus or approval from the legislature is the least useful act we could do. A far better plan would be to tighten economic sanctions and combine these with a diplomatic offensive with both Russia and it's allies in order to first isolate Russia and then give them the opportunity to rethink their strategy without losing too much face. But no, dropping bombs from afar is far easier and looks good on the telly.
Dazh +1
And to counter the argument that sanctions and diplomacy won’t work, please how me examples of how cruise missiles do.
lock 'em up lock 'em up lock 'em up lock 'em up
professor of public international law at Oxford University....
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.