Syria

[Awol]

 

On chemical weapons - am I right in believing that the Israeli army used white phosphorous on Palestinian people?  Also what about the drone strikes in Pakistan by the US.  Not chemical but still pretty indiscriminate when it comes to killing.  Should we take military action against these two?

 

Well that drone strike comparison is a bit batty in the context of a scale of bad-ness, but heck, why not eh? And the Russians too, they finally subdued Grozny by the liberal and indiscriminate use of nerve agents, it just wasn't acknowledged because then 'someone' would have had to do 'something', and no one wants to go there... 

 

Anyone else who should get some?

[drat01]

Interesting how the conversation moved from one of "praise" for the Gvmt (and previously condemnation for Milliband for wanting the amendment), down to a question on Cameron and his leadership qualities. while it's widely reported and you have seen direct quotes from various Gvmt members that they are both publicly unhappy, and behind the scenes resorting to some quite disgusting comments. If the vote had been cast as a yes today, I wonder if the admiration for Cameron would have been the same. I wonder what "appeasement" Cameron will offer the States now?

 

There seem to be very few who actually think that armed intervention from the UK - at this moment - is the right thing to do, or is a legitimate thing based on where we are and what we currently know. Cameron has been weakened within his own party because he has now got pro and anti factions very much within the group and that at a time when as someone said previously we don't need political divides based on party politics. The LibDems continue to kill themselves off and yesterdays actions of Clegg confirmed that he is deader than a dead man in Deadville in terms of political career as a part leader. A Tory Peerage no doubt awaits.

 

Still have seen very little comment re the defeat of the amendment, the one that Milliband was being moaned at about on here, until it was pointed out that it was actually a good thing. How does the defeat of that sit within people's views?

 

Re the more important subject of Syria, in terms of UK intervention then there are a lot of things that this Gvmt can and should do. Ensure that all political parties are correctly briefed on any military intelligence (!) - and yes IDS as Tory leader was briefed before the Iraq vote despite the claims that he wasn't - only act when there is a proper and cast iron mandate based on facts. Utilise the UN as far as it can. Do not act as the worlds policeman.  

[terrytini]

Countries have had civil wars for hundreds of years.

 

Good job the yanks had theirs 150 years ago else presumably we would be bombing them ?

 

It is all very sad, but much of life, and life in the development of nations, is sad.

 

Nobody should intervene - militarily -  in civil wars, only intervene when one nation attacks another.

 

Harsh, but realisitic.  Would we have welcomed a battalion or two from, say Turkey, when the roundheads fought the cavaliers?

Edited August 30, 2013 by terrytini

[blandy]

...My only worry is that I hope the vote last night was not a retrospective in hindsight vote on iraq and people trying to put right a past wrong.

 

Syria is a mess,  it's a civil war yes but a mess that could impact the region and wider.  The use of Chemical weapons (by whoever) is a crime and needs justice and should never happen again.  I am not saying I would have voted for or against last night I am saying that I hope people have voted on this issue and not on Iraq or on scoring a cheap political point.  I further hope there can be an agreement on how we help the people of Syria,  because that is the important thing in this and now the vote by us has taken place I'd like to see a focus by all parties on how we can stop the loss of life and the use of these weapons.

 

I really don't see how last night was a vote on Iraq - not that you're saying it was, just voicing a hint it might have been). I mean surely, for example your fellow Tories, the "rebels"didn't think - I know we'll get Dave because, er, Iraq was a packet of lies by the then Labour Gov't?

 

I've no doubt that they voted as they did for all kinds of reasons - Genuine anti-war conviction, or lack of evidence, or fear of UKIP, of representations by constituents, or a view that "not our problem", or lack of a plan or any detail or whatever. I imagine they have seen the lessons of Iraq, and taken them in, sure. But that's a different thing. Learning is generally good. Thinking now is 14 years ago is generally the preserve of people who have problems of one sort or another.

 

As for Labour and the others who voted against. Maybe, just maybe in with all their other motives (not so far from the ones that might have played on the tory rebels minds) they too, like the majority of the country just think that there's not enough of a case been made. Horrible as the slaughter has been and will continue to be.

 

As well as Iraq lies, there's the lesson of escalation from Afghanistan ("with not a bullet being fired", John Reid) and post action planning (Iraq) and arming or aiding various rabbles (Iraq, Afghanistan). Lessons about letting inspectors do their thing, even.

 

But basically the vote may have been informed by what we've learnt from Iraq, which is a good thing, but wasn't surely ON Iraq.

[peterms]

Quite interesting discussion here on when it might be right to break international law to attack another country.

 

Bombing Syria for using chemical weapons against its own citizens would violate international law as it currently exists -- let’s get that straight. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the U.S. should do it anyway.

 

Some evils are so great that righting them requires violating laws that are inadequate to the situation, such as when the U.S. broke the same international law by bombing Serbia in 1999 to stop what looked a lot like genocide in Kosovo. The real question is: Should we break international law to send the symbolic message that use of chemical weapons violates, well, international law?

 

The legal analysis is surprisingly simple. If the United Nations Security Council authorizes force, international law allows it. Otherwise, unless acting in self-defense, a country or a group such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has no right to attack another.

 

The U.K. government issued a statement to the effect that international law recognizes a right to intervene proportionately when many lives are being lost -- a version of what is sometimes called the international responsibility to protect, or R2P. The biggest trouble with this argument -- the U.K. also used it when NATO bombed Kosovo -- is that it doesn’t appear in any treaty or any definitive statement of international law.

Global Disagreement

The British lawyers might say that customary international law recognizes this right after the Kosovo bombings. But custom is supposed to become law when all or almost all states agree with it. And as we can plainly see from the Russian and Chinese opposition to bombing Syria, not everyone agrees. Even after Kosovo, the U.S. and U.K. went to the Security Council to seek authorization for bombing and then invading Iraq. The same was true of bombing Libya.

 

Illegality under international law shouldn’t end the discussion, however. Laws are made to be broken -- especially international laws that create the possibility of horribly immoral results under some conditions. It would be monstrous to stand by and let hundreds of thousands or millions of people die preventable deaths because, say, Russia vetoes action in the Security Council.

 

The bombing of Kosovo was justifiable in moral terms -- the saving of innocent lives -- even if it was (cough, cough) illegal. If genocide in Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia or German-occupied Europe could have been prevented by unlawful intervention, it would have been the right thing to do. What is more, doing the right thing enough times might eventually change international custom so that the law does in fact change to allow or even require protecting the vulnerable.

 

But violent disobedience of the law shouldn’t be undertaken lightly. International law exists because its serves the interests of states and people. Almost all the time, it deserves to be followed. Breaking it weakens respect for the rule of law itself. It makes our treaties less meaningful and our commitments less firm. Breaking it makes us all a little less secure and safe.

Limited Bombing

It would be worth violating international law to save hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria -- if we were confident we could actually do so. But that isn’t the Obama adminstration proposal. Instead, the U.S. and U.K. are talking about bombing in limited ways, with the goal of deterring further use of chemical weapons by Assad or other bad actors in the world.

 

It’s unclear whether the deterrent would work, of course. President Barack Obama’s warning about “red lines” obviously failed. But even assuming Assad and others might be deterred, is it worth the violation of international law to create this limited deterrence? Would enough lives be saved to justify the cost?

 

Numbers can’t fully answer this moral problem. Logic, however, can help. What’s wrong with weapons of mass destruction isn’t just that they kill lots of people. Assad has killed many thousands more of his citizens by conventional means. No, such weapons are particularly hateful because they violate international law. For more than a century we have realized that chemical or biological attacks are bad for everybody in war -- which is why almost all nations on earth signed treaties banning them.

 

So the principle behind bombing Syria would be this: Follow international law or face the consequences. How, exactly, can we send that message if the bombing itself violates the UN Charter? How can we credibly claim to deter egregious violation of international law by breaking international law ourselves?

 

The conclusion is painful, but I think also clear. If we can save many lives, we shouldn’t hold back from bombing Syria. But sending a symbolic message isn’t a good enough justification to deepen the precedent of violating international law when we feel like it. Especially when the symbolic message is about respecting that law in the first place.

 

[peterms]

I've no doubt that they voted as they did for all kinds of reasons

My MP (a Lib Dem who voted against) has written to people who contacted him about this, setting out his reasons.

 

 

Last night I had to make one of the most difficult decisions in my time in Westminster.

 

On the one hand we have a humanitarian disaster descending into ever worse atrocities and on the other a mixed history of UK involvement in military interventions with very poor outcomes. Given such a background I wanted to describe how I came to the decision I did.

 

After careful consideration, I voted against the Labour amendment and the Government motion, both of which set out a route which could ultimately lead to military intervention in Syria.

 

It is worth being clear; this is not another Iraq. Unlike ten years ago there is strong evidence that Assad is responsible for this atrocity and there is a clear legal case for action using the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine, a recognised legal principle of humanitarian intervention. However, what has not been done is to exhaust all possible diplomatic channels through the UN and to define the strict limits of that intervention and understand all its possible consequences.

 

To some extent those points were dealt with in both the Government’s motion and Labour’s amendment, particularly with the need to return to Parliament to vote again before action took place. But my feeling was that to set out such a route map to intervention meant that the steps along the way would become boxes merely to be ticked. Such involvement could have dire consequences in the region with Israel and Iran in such close proximity.

 

Of course, our choices should not be constrained by the risk of uncertainties. Every course of action, even doing nothing, carries unknown consequences; but it is my judgement that the risks of hasty military intervention are greater than those of stepping back from an attack.

 

I understand that some people will regard this as doing nothing but I will be urging the Government to now put all its efforts into brokering a UN-led solution, and trying to get all factions in the country to the table in the Geneva peace talks. We must also work to ensure that the humanitarian situation in and around Syria is improved.

 

I am realistic. This may not work and we may be back debating our stance with Syria in the weeks or months ahead. I can only promise that when and if that happens I will examine the circumstances with the same rigour and try to avoid conflict wherever possible.

 

[markavfc40]

Couple of cracking posts on this page from Drat and Blandy. Well said lads.

Edited August 30, 2013 by markavfc40

[carlitobrigante]

People here really think this is an elaborate double bluff?

 

Have you seen the footage, and read the background? The areas were being shelled for days, the rebels haven't once been able to conduct an artillery / rocket attack on the government, yet are now supposed to have been able to carry out a large scale chemical attack in multiple locations? The areas attacked were shelled by conventional artillery before and after the strikes. And now the US says it has proof that Syrian chemical units were seen gas masking up, and were in the area.

 

That's in addition to the firebombing, airstrikes and other atrocities that we are seeing daily. If we had acted sooner, could we have toppled Assad in those early weeks when the momentum was with the rebels, Hezbollah were not involved and the Islamists hadn't infiltrated the rebel movement??? Who is to say. Maybe we could have some form of peace by now, and a quick toppling of the regime and have now a fledging democracy a la Libya / Tunisia? 

 

We went into Libya for less than this. I am not sure what has changed.

 

For me, I am all for Assad getting a taste of some shock and awe. I don't want our troops on the ground, but there has to be at least limited airstrikes to send a message, you just cant allow chemical weapons use like this to go unpunished. It would however just be nice for us to take a back seat for once though, and let some other countries take up the burden for a change. Turkey and the rest of the middle east need to step up.

[LondonLax]

Yes I was not sure before but it does look like the government forces were responsible. If the US releases its evidence in the coming days it will require a response but I still think the correct way to do it is to try the UN first rather than jumping in two feet first. 

[peterms]

[tomaspg]

these are my two cents atleast..

going in guns blazing is going to turn it into a shit sandwich of epic proportions, its not afganistan where there are some farmers with kalasnikovs, they got around 10,000 tanks, 6,000 artiillary pieces, 4,000 surface to air systems, long range ballistic missiles etc, a fully trained quite sophisticated russian made defence of around 100,000 men, an alot more competent airforce with mig-29's, 200 mig 21's, series of su's etc. Attacking them would give them legal reson to hit back at bases in turkey and cyprus and a full on mark invasion might be necessary to sort it out, afghanistan, irak and libya will look like a summer holiday compared to this. you also got the russians only mediterrainean naval base in the area in syria something they dont want to lose, russian gas pipelines etc. iran and hizbollah doesnt want to see a israeli friendly goverment so they will get involved, you have 5-6 secretarian rebel forces who are fighting in there, who of them will get the power? qatar and saudi arabia is involved too.   and who of them will put their hands on the chemical weapons? tanks, planes etc, for it to end up in a reasonable situation i think both sides of this conflict will have to be dealt with, the US and the UK alone will not be enough to deal with it, sure they can but at too high costs, there would have to be a full on UN action with several countries getting involved, and not alot of countries will be happy to arm up and spend millions in the economical situation were in. its worth noting that members of jabhat al nusra was caught with 2.5kg sarin in may. we should have learned by now that bombing a country into democracy and peace isnt a tactic that works. its horrid whats happening there at the moment but in principle any foreign intervention is only going to make things worse and open up the situation for alot more civilian casualties than we have now and if we look at it in a cold way saving lives in the long run would mean allowing assad to keep on doing what hes doing, using diplomatic forces mainly. **** knows how it can be sorted really. im not saying all this will happen if he gets smacked around a bit for what he did, but it opens up the possibilities.

[peterms]

People here really think this is an elaborate double bluff?

 

Have you seen the footage, and read the background? The areas were being shelled for days, the rebels haven't once been able to conduct an artillery / rocket attack on the government, yet are now supposed to have been able to carry out a large scale chemical attack in multiple locations? The areas attacked were shelled by conventional artillery before and after the strikes. And now the US says it has proof that Syrian chemical units were seen gas masking up, and were in the area.

Yes, the US says it has proof. Here. It's incredibly thin, basically repeating assertions with the phrase "we assess" in front of them, claiming to have mountains of evidence but not actually showing any of it. Cameron was more honest, when saying there was no proof and that it's a judgement call.

And I see it references MSF's recent statements (though not identifying them by name), despite MSF saying two days ago

 

...MSF also stated that in its role as a medical humanitarian organisation, it was not in a position to determine responsibility for the event.

 

Now that an investigation is underway by UN inspectors, MSF rejects that our statement be used as a substitute for the investigation or as a justification for military action...

There's an interesting report here. It quotes local people from the area where the chemical weapons were released, including direct quotes from the named father of a dead rebel, saying the CWs were in the possession of the rebels, who didn't know what they were, and set them off by mistake.

 

 

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

 

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

 

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

 

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

 

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

 

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

 

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

 

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

 

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

 

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

 

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

 

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

 

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

 

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

 

More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government...(continues)

 

I'm very sure there will be no interest in exploring this further, in an attempt to discover whether there is any truth in it.  For Mr Kerry, he of the whitened teeth and botoxed face and permed hair, has spoken; and that is all that we need to know.

[peterms]

John Kerry:  "Very Well, Alone".

 

[LondonLax]

The thing is though, that is much weaker than even the US evidence. It's just complete hearsay and could have been written by anyone.

I don't think you are weighing the evidence equally from both sides and deciding the most likely conclusion, it seems like you are dismissing evidence from one side whilst giving credence to the other side no matter how flimsy to support your already held conclusion.

[peterms]

You have an odd idea of what hearsay is. The article contains direct quotes from named people. Hearsay would be if the people quoted were saying they heard it from someone else.

You may think it's wrong, or fabricated, or deliberately lying propaganda (though it's not immediately obvious why you would); but you shouldn't call it hearsay.

You also seem to think that I have believed it unconditionally, while dismissing what the US have said. I don't know if this is because you didn't read what I said, or because I worded it poorly - they say irony doesn't work on the internet. I am saying it should be explored further, to find out if there is any truth in it; but that I believe there won't be much interest in doing so, because the US have made up their minds.

In that respect, when you say that I am dismissing one set of evidence while giving credence to the other, you seem to be projecting onto me what you are in fact doing yourself.

[LondonLax]

That website is the definition of hearsay, it's second hand knowledge supposedly heard by persons unnamed. If the evidence was presented by first hand witnesses then it would be primary evidence but "some guy who shall remain nameless says XYZ" is hearsay.

Anyway, you have not been shy in declaring which side you are prepared to believe throughout the whole thread.

[peterms]

That website is the definition of hearsay, it's second hand knowledge supposedly heard by persons unnamed. If the evidence was presented by first hand witnesses then it would be primary evidence but "some guy who shall remain nameless says XYZ" is hearsay.

Anyway, you have not been shy in declaring which side you are prepared to believe throughout the whole thread.

 

I see.  You think that as only one person interviewed was prepared to be named while others don't want to be named for fear of reprisals, then the website on which the story is carried becomes "the definition of hearsay".  That's nonsense, and I suspect you know it.

 

I don't believe we have anything like the truth of exactly what happened, and I approach the US version of things with great wariness, given their long and widespread history of falsification of things.

 

I would like to see independent assessment of what happened, and that should include assessment of whether the accounts given in this story are true.  Instead of that, we have had long and loud assertions by the US and the UK that there is clear evidence that Assad's forces launched a CW attack, but no evidence backing this up has been presented.  A previous claim that Assad launched CWs was made earlier this year by the US, but the UN instead concluded that sarin had been used by the rebel forces; a finding which apparently did not breach a "red line".

 

The mainstream media is conniving with the US line about chemical weapons being a new and dreadful development, unleashed by a crazed dictator.  The simple truth, as I think we all know, is that chemical weapons have been used both directly by the US and also by regimes with its approval, many times in the last few decades.  It would be helpful if public debate would recognise that simple reality, and frame discussion accordingly, instead of presenting childish caricatures aimed at creating an emotional climate which tolerates armed assault on Syria in contravention of international law.  It would be even more helpful if our governments were to work towards reducing the level of conflict, instead of ramping it up in the hope of securing an outcome which they want.

[Electric Avenue]

Thank you France. Thank you.

In what way ?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The risk of intervention outweighed the benefit.

 

It doesn't feel right because, well, just look at the **** state of things. But there were dead kids and raped women and beheadings and burnt up carcasses wrapped up in white sheets long before the chemical attacks and a short bombing campaign would've achieved nothing but created an even playing field for further atrocities. 

[Awol]

John Kerry:  "Very Well, Alone".

 

Funny you posted that picture, I was thinking that it wouldn't hurt for the US to be first in this time and then we can join them a few years down the line, maybe just before the end. In the interim we can build and sell them weapons getting filthy rich in the process...