U.S. Politics

[Brumerican]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Doesn't the Trump attack break the Geneva convention as a hostile military act by a single state without a declaration of war and without the backing international organisations? 

If it had been anyone but the US we'd be using the description 'rogue state'. There is no mandate for the US to unilaterally decide on the application of international law. 

 

They're the worlds' moral conscience don't ya know !

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Doesn't the Trump attack break the Geneva convention as a hostile military act by a single state without a declaration of war and without the backing international organisations? 

If it had been anyone but the US we'd be using the description 'rogue state'. There is no mandate for the US to unilaterally decide on the application of international law. 

 

Yes it does, yes we would, and no there isn't. Well said. 

[foreveryoung]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Obama absolutely should have gone to Congress, which (on this occasion, and not on several others, which is to his shame) he did. Launching missiles at a sovereign nation (ie, Trump's actions this week) is an act of war, which should have received both UN and congressional approval, as acts of war should do. 

I'm sure they would not oppose a missile strike from the US due to Assad using Chemicals. this could be argued to the high courts. People die from bombs,.torture, gun shots all over the world yes, though chemicals are seen as a step to far and break conventions, you don't fully need congress for that.

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I'm sure they would not oppose a missile strike from the US due to Assad using Chemicals. this could be argued to the high courts. People die from bombs,.torture, gun shots all over the world yes, though chemicals are seen as a step to far and break conventions, you don't fully need congress for that.

I confess I don't really understand your comment. 

[villakram]

Trump letter to congress makes it clear that he is acting in the US national interest. No freedom, democracy or any of that nonsense. It's all empire, power and resources. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

22 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Doesn't the Trump attack break the Geneva convention as a hostile military act by a single state without a declaration of war and without the backing international organisations? 

If it had been anyone but the US we'd be using the description 'rogue state'. There is no mandate for the US to unilaterally decide on the application of international law. 

 

And Obama's various drone attacks during his tenure? Did he declare war on Pakistan, Syria, Libya and Somalia?

[OutByEaster?]

13 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

And Obama's various drone attacks during his tenure? Did he declare war on Pakistan, Syria, Libya and Somalia?

No he didn't. The US has a long and consistent history of the types of attacks that they'd describe as terrorism if they were carried out by anyone else.

Those drone attacks haven't stopped by the way. In fact, three weeks ago a US drone bombed a building in Aleppo killing 46 people, one of a number of attacks in Syria this month with similar casualty numbers, the same pattern is true in the Yemen, where the US (and by association, the smaller version -us) are killing people at an alarming rate - that's before we even get to the other nations you've mentioned. 

How much we care about these attacks would seem to be based almost entirely on how much press coverage they're allocated.

 

 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

the same pattern is true in the Yemen, where the US (and by association, the smaller version -us) are killing people at an alarming rate -

How is the UK killing people at an alarming rate in Yemen, OBE?

[Keyblade]

18 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

No he didn't. The US has a long and consistent history of the types of attacks that they'd describe as terrorism if they were carried out by anyone else.

Those drone attacks haven't stopped by the way. In fact, three weeks ago a US drone bombed a building in Aleppo killing 46 people, one of a number of attacks in Syria this month with similar casualty numbers, the same pattern is true in the Yemen, where the US (and by association, the smaller version -us) are killing people at an alarming rate - that's before we even get to the other nations you've mentioned. 

How much we care about these attacks would seem to be based almost entirely on how much press coverage they're allocated.

 

 

I remember seen a stat that the drone bombs have increased something like 400% under Trump.

Didn't one recently kill a record 60 civilians in Syria?

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

How is the UK killing people at an alarming rate in Yemen, OBE?

We're part of the team, economically, politically and socially - there's a degree of responsibility on the client state even if we're not flying the planes; especially since we're heavily involved in selling the bombs and weapons that are doing the killing. I guess you could say that's a pretty wooly (and very arguable) definition but I think it's true.

 

[Awol]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

We're part of the team, economically, politically and socially - there's a degree of responsibility on the client state even if we're not flying the planes; especially since we're heavily involved in selling the bombs and weapons that are doing the killing. I guess you could say that's a pretty wooly (and very arguable) definition but I think it's true.

 

More directly we having serving personnel working on targeting in the coalition ops centre, and serving personnel assisting coalition naval forces carrying out the blockade - unofficially titled (by me) 'Operation "starve them all to death"'.  

UK contract personnel are arming, refueling and maintaining the aircraft used in the massacres and I'd place a big bet HMG is assisting in other ways not in public domain. 

Uniformed Brits and Americans are not 'pulling the trigger' but without them there'd be no trigger to pull.

This is not a criticism of western militaries legally doing their job as ordered, but of the politicians who put them there.

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Awol

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

And Obama's various drone attacks during his tenure? Did he declare war on Pakistan, Syria, Libya and Somalia?

Left wing governments have been shown to have far more leeway when it comes to doing stuff which would be prohibitive for right wing governments.

People still bang on about Thatcher and the Falklands but Blair killed far more and for less justifiable reasons.

In Germany it was the Social Democrats-Greens coalition which implemented Agenda 2010 which cut benefits and liberalised the markets, which became part of the Lisbon Treaty.

There is no way a right wing party could have got away with that. 

[LondonLax]

30 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Left wing governments have been shown to have far more leeway when it comes to doing stuff which would be prohibitive for right wing governments.

People still bang on about Thatcher and the Falklands but Blair killed far more and for less justifiable reasons.

In Germany it was the Social Democrats-Greens coalition which implemented Agenda 2010 which cut benefits and liberalised the markets, which became part of the Lisbon Treaty.

There is no way a right wing party could have got away with that. 

Did you forget about Bush when making your point about Blair? Also, I'm pretty sure people still 'bang on' about Blair. 

[MakemineVanilla]

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Did you forget about Bush when making your point about Blair? Also, I'm pretty sure people still 'bang on' about Blair. 

Certainly not.

The difference is that when right wing leaders commit heinous military crimes, it is forever presented as a natural extension of their ideology but when left wing leaders do the same the history is written entirely differently.

I think comparing the Kennedy-Johnson administration with Bush offers a fairer example of the difference between how history presents the left and the right.

 

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Certainly not.

The difference is that when right wing leaders commit heinous military crimes, it is forever presented as a natural extension of their ideology but when left wing leaders do the same the history is written entirely differently.

I think comparing the Kennedy-Johnson administration with Bush offers a fairer example of the difference between how history presents the left and the right.

 

So explain to me how Blair has been given 'more leeway' than Bush.

Also, didn't your comment come about when talk of Obama's drone strikes came up? Obama was hammered over the drone policy. It increases under Trump and not a discussion about it anywhere. So who is getting more leeway on drone strikes?

[OutByEaster?]

Blair-Bush-Obama-Thatcher.

Sorry, which was the left wing government?

 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

More directly we having serving personnel working on targeting in the coalition ops centre, and serving personnel assisting coalition naval forces carrying out the blockade - unofficially titled (by me) 'Operation "starve them all to death"'.  

UK contract personnel are arming, refueling and maintaining the aircraft used in the massacres and I'd place a big bet HMG is assisting in other ways not in public domain. 

Uniformed Brits and Americans are not 'pulling the trigger' but without them there'd be no trigger to pull.

This is not a criticism of western militaries legally doing their job as ordered, but of the politicians who put them there.

There's another aspect to the involvement of the UK people. They are working on the targeting and servicing aircraft etc. However, particularly in the targeting the UK is doing the targeting correctly and professionally, and aiming to avoid civilian casualties etc, just as they do with UK actions. The UK has also (I think) tabled UN resolution(s) for a ceasefire.

So we the UK haven't actually "killed people at an alarming rate" - we have tried to broker a ceasefire between the Iranian backed Houtis and the Saudis &Co. Yes we have and continue to supply arms and logistics etc. to Saudi, and absolutely it's an appalling situation and the Saudi military actions and standards appear to be well below what they should be (same applies to the Houti rebels).

There's a whole chain of events that started with a young man setting himself on fire in Tunisia 7 years ago, sparking the whole Arab spring that has rumbled on in ways that have diverged from the original aim (such as there was any clear aim, other than getting rid of corrupt leaders). Tunisia spread to Libya and Ghadaffi and then in Syria a 14 year old schoolboy scribbled "Assad, you're next" on the wall of his school. He was arrested, beaten, tortured gave names of others who'd egged him on, they were arrested and tortured, they gave more names out of desperation to stop the torture. Their families protested, they managed to get the kids released, but when the people saw what had been done to the kids, that set off more protests, the protesters were shot by Assad's forces. At the funerals, mourners were shot. More protests, the protesters started arming themselves with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, escalation, civil war. Putin wants to keep Assad in place, for fear of serious protest spreading to Russia. Iran, get involved, the Iraqi mess seeps in, ISIS, Al Nusrat and all the others. Chemical weapons...terror attacks in the west...

It's a monumental can of worms, and who knows what would happen if the Saudi's did have their arms deliveries stopped. Would their be riots and protests in Saudi? would there be war between Iran and Saudi? Would the Houti rebels "win" in Yemen and Iran move in? What would Putin do?.....

I dunno the answer (obviously), but I kind of think "stop the UK selling planes and arms to Saudi isn't part of the answer.

 

[villakram]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

There's another aspect to the involvement of the UK people. They are working on the targeting and servicing aircraft etc. However, particularly in the targeting the UK is doing the targeting correctly and professionally, and aiming to avoid civilian casualties etc, just as they do with UK actions. The UK has also (I think) tabled UN resolution(s) for a ceasefire.

So we the UK haven't actually "killed people at an alarming rate" - we have tried to broker a ceasefire between the Iranian backed Houtis and the Saudis &Co. Yes we have and continue to supply arms and logistics etc. to Saudi, and absolutely it's an appalling situation and the Saudi military actions and standards appear to be well below what they should be (same applies to the Houti rebels).

There's a whole chain of events that started with a young man setting himself on fire in Tunisia 7 years ago, sparking the whole Arab spring that has rumbled on in ways that have diverged from the original aim (such as there was any clear aim, other than getting rid of corrupt leaders). Tunisia spread to Libya and Ghadaffi and then in Syria a 14 year old schoolboy scribbled "Assad, you're next" on the wall of his school. He was arrested, beaten, tortured gave names of others who'd egged him on, they were arrested and tortured, they gave more names out of desperation to stop the torture. Their families protested, they managed to get the kids released, but when the people saw what had been done to the kids, that set off more protests, the protesters were shot by Assad's forces. At the funerals, mourners were shot. More protests, the protesters started arming themselves with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, escalation, civil war. Putin wants to keep Assad in place, for fear of serious protest spreading to Russia. Iran, get involved, the Iraqi mess seeps in, ISIS, Al Nusrat and all the others. Chemical weapons...terror attacks in the west...

It's a monumental can of worms, and who knows what would happen if the Saudi's did have their arms deliveries stopped. Would their be riots and protests in Saudi? would there be war between Iran and Saudi? Would the Houti rebels "win" in Yemen and Iran move in? What would Putin do?.....

I dunno the answer (obviously), but I kind of think "stop the UK selling planes and arms to Saudi isn't part of the answer.

 

They did? Or they were armed?

Putin is not afraid of protest breaking out in Russia. If what you mean are protests for freedom and democracy... like we have? Remember the Iraq thing where the people were ignored or the illegal spying that was post facto legalized?

This is now an official resource war. Back where we started with Russian/Iranian goodies vs Our Muslims goodies. Iran will accede to the SCO soon and the likelihood has increased that they will also join the defence pact associated with that. The empire is acting as one would expect. Same as the previous one did.

 

 

 

[Awol]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

There's another aspect to the involvement of the UK people. They are working on the targeting and servicing aircraft etc. However, particularly in the targeting the UK is doing the targeting correctly and professionally, and aiming to avoid civilian casualties etc, just as they do with UK actions. The UK has also (I think) tabled UN resolution(s) for a ceasefire.

So we the UK haven't actually "killed people at an alarming rate" - we have tried to broker a ceasefire between the Iranian backed Houtis and the Saudis &Co. Yes we have and continue to supply arms and logistics etc. to Saudi, and absolutely it's an appalling situation and the Saudi military actions and standards appear to be well below what they should be (same applies to the Houti rebels).

There's a whole chain of events that started with a young man setting himself on fire in Tunisia 7 years ago, sparking the whole Arab spring that has rumbled on in ways that have diverged from the original aim (such as there was any clear aim, other than getting rid of corrupt leaders). Tunisia spread to Libya and Ghadaffi and then in Syria a 14 year old schoolboy scribbled "Assad, you're next" on the wall of his school. He was arrested, beaten, tortured gave names of others who'd egged him on, they were arrested and tortured, they gave more names out of desperation to stop the torture. Their families protested, they managed to get the kids released, but when the people saw what had been done to the kids, that set off more protests, the protesters were shot by Assad's forces. At the funerals, mourners were shot. More protests, the protesters started arming themselves with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, escalation, civil war. Putin wants to keep Assad in place, for fear of serious protest spreading to Russia. Iran, get involved, the Iraqi mess seeps in, ISIS, Al Nusrat and all the others. Chemical weapons...terror attacks in the west...

It's a monumental can of worms, and who knows what would happen if the Saudi's did have their arms deliveries stopped. Would their be riots and protests in Saudi? would there be war between Iran and Saudi? Would the Houti rebels "win" in Yemen and Iran move in? What would Putin do?.....

I dunno the answer (obviously), but I kind of think "stop the UK selling planes and arms to Saudi isn't part of the answer.

 

I know we're going OT but will try to show how US and U.K. politics has been part of the problem.

Ref' the Arab Spring: yes it's been and continues to be pretty nuts. Four current civil wars raging, brutal suppression followed by simmering unrest in Bahrain, Egypt going backwards, Tunisia tottering, a high probability of Jordan and Lebanon failing too in the next few years. 

The problems are structural throughout politics, society and the economy, they are not going away and won't be solved by outside intervention. 

Focusing on the Yemen, I was in Sana'a back in 2011 when it all blew up. While there was a fair bit of fighting there was also moderation. Both sides had lots more in the tank but chose not to use it, in part because violence between Yemenis is usually carefully calibrated (the tribal blood feuds last generations) to achieve political ends.

President Saleh gets blown up and badly injured then the political process resumes. 

Enter Saudi, the US and the U.K. trying to facilitate a return to the status quo, bad actors locally are supported and the people behind the revolution (youth movements, democracy activists and yes, the Houthis) are sidelined in favour of vested interests. This farce continues in the guise of a "National Dialogue" following a US/UK/KSA approved election with one candidate, until said President unilaterally decides the future federal structure of the country, against the wishes of most local groups and to great celebration in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Washington and London. 

The Houthis with considerable tribal and military support then take the capital and run "our man" out of town and into exile. Oman brokers multi-sided peace talks for ALL of the stakeholders in Yemen and before they can begin Saudi attacks the country with an alliance of other dictatorships supported by the US and U.K.

The Iranian bogeyman was up there with the Gulf of Tonkin as a reason to invade. It was a largely fabricated and vastly exaggerated "threat" to Saudi, manufactured to justify the regional strategy of counter revolution pursued by the petro-monarchies, namely:

Make the uprisings fail at all costs to protect their own positions. Democracy must be seen by their own subjects to be a foreign body, introduced by a perfidious West as an agent of chaos designed to destroy their societies, values and traditions. 

That's why Saudi crushed the mass uprising in Bahrain, why they bank rolled al Sisi in Egypt, why they back hardline Islamists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan and the list goes on and on. 

Two nations have stood foursquare behind Saudi and their allies as this shitfest has unfolded, the US and the U.K. 

I believe that is due to strategic commercial interest, fear that Saudi will eventually fall and what in that event the popular will of Saudis would translate to politically.

In truth there is likely good reason to fear that. It doesn't justify what we (UK) are now tacitly supporting in Yemen, the deliberate, savage, cowardly and vindictive destruction of the Arab world's oldest, poorest and formerly most socially promising country.

The various iterations of peace talks have been a deliberate farce. Politically Saudi cannot afford not to win and so cannot stop until they do, even if it means famine and death on a biblical scale. They'll carry on bombing for as long as it takes, or until we (US/UK) say 'no more', withdraw direct support and remove their means to continue.

I'd apologise for the length of post but this was the short version...

 

[blandy]

12 hours ago, Awol said:

Two nations have stood foursquare behind Saudi and their allies as this shitfest has unfolded, the US and the U.K. 

I believe that is due to strategic commercial interest, fear that Saudi will eventually fall and what in that event the popular will of Saudis would translate to politically.

Is there anywhere in the middle east where the fall of the leadership, or the struggles to overthrow the leadership has made things better?