War without a vote?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: War without a vote?

Post by mercalia »

Psamathe wrote:
mercalia wrote:I think Trump thinks he is playing World of Warcraft or some other war /Adventrure game - would certainly cost less for the tax payer?

I disagree with the 1st few words "I think Trump thinks"

Ian

:?:
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Cunobelin »

Interesting thought from a “Military” spokesman this morning

An “unexpected” strike is safer for the participants and more effective

Having a vote is a bit like writing to your opponents in advance so they can prepare their defences, and tends to be more dangerous for the participants
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by pete75 »

Cunobelin wrote:Interesting thought from a “Military” spokesman this morning

An “unexpected” strike is safer for the participants and more effective

Having a vote is a bit like writing to your opponents in advance so they can prepare their defences, and tends to be more dangerous for the participants


And so is tweeting in advance or saying in advance there won't be a vote before a "strike".
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Cunobelin »

....... unless your tweets are usually bizarre rambling that have little touch with reality?

Could have been a clever ploy

Except that would put Trump and clever in the same sentence
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Psamathe »

Cunobelin wrote:Interesting thought from a “Military” spokesman this morning

An “unexpected” strike is safer for the participants and more effective

Having a vote is a bit like writing to your opponents in advance so they can prepare their defences, and tends to be more dangerous for the participants

I think it depends on the aims of the "strike". I think what Trumpton/May/Macaroon were intending was more for their domestic audience and their egos that actually achieving anything. All commentaries I've seen are saying that the strike itself will achieve nothing and discourage nothing. All for demonstrating to domestic audience how tough they are and how they "will act" to deter such things (even if that action is ineffective).

Though where they place their "red lines" is interesting in that their failure to act in other circumstances (e.g. alleged barrel bombs in civilian residential areas) presumably means they don't find that particularly unacceptable. Interesting what they place over their "red line" and what is not "over their red line".

I would expect a vote would be about a general motion of some action without listing specific weapons, without dates, without targets, etc. Assad already knew there would be retaliation the moment the alleged chemical attack was authorised even if Trump had tweeted nothing. The "surprise" is when, where and what.

Ian
djnotts
Posts: 3037
Joined: 26 May 2008, 12:51pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: War without a vote?

Post by djnotts »

Putin may be an honorary Russian Angel ("....the Night Wolves – Putin's Hell's Angels") but so far he has not followed the philosophy - the slightest affront demands extreme violence. Strange that May has more bottle than a KGB thug!
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Cunobelin wrote:Interesting thought from a “Military” spokesman this morning

An “unexpected” strike is safer for the participants and more effective

Having a vote is a bit like writing to your opponents in advance so they can prepare their defences, and tends to be more dangerous for the participants

Politrickians need to practise lying more convincingly, to decieve their opponents
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
djnotts
Posts: 3037
Joined: 26 May 2008, 12:51pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: War without a vote?

Post by djnotts »

LEGAL (my emphasis) case seems sound to me. Certainly extremely well drafted, direct, concise, comprehensive - the standards of at least some of the Service have not fallen as far as I had feared.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... l-position
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Psamathe »

djnotts wrote:LEGAL (my emphasis) case seems sound to me. Certainly extremely well drafted, direct, concise, comprehensive - the standards of at least some of the Service have not fallen as far as I had feared.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... l-position

I'm not convinced e.g. clause 3
3.The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention, which requires three conditions to be met:

(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

The alleged attacks undoubtedly caused human suffering but retaliatory attacks will not in any way relieve that suffering. The clause only refers to alleviating "overwhelming humanitarian suffering" which cannot (to my mind) include the possibility of future suffering.
In more detail:
(i) the attacks do not provide immediate and urgent relief to those suffering
(ii) the attacks do not save the lives of those suffering because of the alleged attacks.
(iii) the attacks do not relieve the human suffering of those affected by the alleged chemical weapons attack.

So I don't see that clause as relevant. And they are still alleged attacks, the inspectors are still in the area investigating but 3 out of 191(?) countries could not wait for their report confirming or rejecting the allegations.

Ian
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Cunobelin »

Cyril Haearn wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Interesting thought from a “Military” spokesman this morning

An “unexpected” strike is safer for the participants and more effective

Having a vote is a bit like writing to your opponents in advance so they can prepare their defences, and tends to be more dangerous for the participants

Politrickians need to practise lying more convincingly, to decieve their opponents


1. He was not a politician he was a Military Expert used by the BBC
2. He was giving an opinion based upon fact, history and professional knowledge
3. Why is everyone who disagrees with afixed point dismissed as a "liar"?

THe practice with this type of raid is to keep the plans a secret until the last minute, then as the strike is under way, you inform the targets. That way they can evacuate the area, but do not have time to put a defence into place, and minimising loss of life whilst still achieving the damage to infrastructure
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Cyril Haearn »

We know next to nothing about all this, anyone here ever been there?
No idea whether anyone is lying or not
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Psamathe »

djnotts wrote:LEGAL (my emphasis) case seems sound to me. Certainly extremely well drafted, direct, concise, comprehensive - the standards of at least some of the Service have not fallen as far as I had feared.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... l-position

Additionally (to my above comment) seems Johnson (our Foreign Secretary) has not been saying that the military action is a punishment as well as a deterrent to others - which seems to conflict with the legal justification and for which there is no legal justification.

So the reasons given for the action by one of the most senior Government ministers put the action outside the legal justification!

Ian
djnotts
Posts: 3037
Joined: 26 May 2008, 12:51pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: War without a vote?

Post by djnotts »

".....The clause only refers to alleviating "overwhelming humanitarian suffering" which cannot (to my mind) include the possibility of future suffering."

Whereas to my mind there is nothing in the wording which, implicitly or explicitly, places it in a chronological context. I assume it was deliberately drafted that way. That's how I would have dealt with such a nicety!

And adding an "additional" benefit such as "punishment" does not in any way render the core, legal, justification nul and void.

None of this per se indicates that I support the action that was taken.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: War without a vote?

Post by Psamathe »

djnotts wrote:".....The clause only refers to alleviating "overwhelming humanitarian suffering" which cannot (to my mind) include the possibility of future suffering."

Whereas to my mind there is nothing in the wording which, implicitly or explicitly, places it in a chronological context. I assume it was deliberately drafted that way. That's how I would have dealt with such a nicety!

And adding an "additional" benefit such as "punishment" does not in any way render the core, legal, justification nul and void.

None of this per se indicates that I support the action that was taken.


"None of this per se indicates that I support the action that was taken." - likewise for myself. I've been somewhat preoccupied with family issues so don't understand all the details.

But in the legal justification on the "human suffering" grounds, terms like "it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved" and "requiring immediate and urgent relief" suggest it related to existing human suffering rather than the possibility of it happening in future. I'd be somewhat annoyed if I were issued speeding tickets because I might break a speed limit at some point in the future. To me the clauses used in the UKs justifications are based on reactive need rather than preventative measures.

Ian
djnotts
Posts: 3037
Joined: 26 May 2008, 12:51pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: War without a vote?

Post by djnotts »

"But in the legal justification on the "human suffering" grounds, terms like "it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved" and "requiring immediate and urgent relief" suggest it related to existing human suffering rather than the possibility of it happening in future." (my emphasis).

"...suggest..." is the important word here! Lives cannot be saved retrospectively, so could only refer to the present or the future and there is nothing in the wording to rule in or out either of those.
Post Reply