Print Story Harumph
Working life
By anonimouse (Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:17:56 AM EST) war, what is it good for, absolutely nothing, relax (all tags)
Good news: Workless households at record low, says ONS

Weird Agency Harassment

Being Syrias for a moment



Regarding the above story, one can't help wondering how many non-workless people have zero hour contracts or whether the increased social housing costs have simply meant more people living in the same household together?

Agency: So I got this offer to work for a company (where the location was supposed to be in Birmingham but ended up in their other office in North Yorkshire), considered it and then accepted it. On Friday, I notified all the other agencies I was in the job seeking process with, including this agency where I'd had a telephone interview for a job and had a real interview scheduled for this week. Got 3 phonecalls on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday morning from the agent for the last role trying to pressure me into revoking my agreement to work for $newCo or at least going to the actual interview whether I was going to take the job or not. After that had my phone screen calls from unknown numbers.

Syria:
Normally I'm in favour of intervening with some reservations. I accept that we had a good reason to go into Afghanistan, and think that driving all over Iraq was simply something that should have happened in Gulf War I, and was simply long overdue, and I care whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction about as much as I care which direction the Belgrano was facing when it got torpedoed. I accept with Iraq and Afghanistan we made mistakes, but it seemed like a reasonable idea at the time. But with Syria I really can't see what the end objective is and can't see any point whatsoever. None of the combatants appear to be in favour of democracy or "Western values" (and my opinion of those has become increasingly jaded), and quite honestly I think the West was wrong to encourage a civil war in Syria that has no end in sight.


< Bug Bites | 50 ways to leave your lover >
Harumph | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Don't think it has much to do with WMDs by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #1 Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:46:07 AM EST
More to do with a proxy war against Iran using the alleged attack as cover. Notice Labour is not supporting the resolution unless it has been sanctioned by the UN although they are abstaining rather than voting against.

For once by anonimouse (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:59:42 AM EST
I wish Ed Milliband would grow a pair and tell his party to vote against.

I notice UKIP is against involvment in Syria - I think I'm going to join the right wing loony party


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
I'm not certain by lm (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 07:32:57 AM EST
Rouhani is making noises that suggest that Iran may back military intervention in Syria if there is convincing evidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. Keep in mind that Iran has the fairly unique quality of having a living memory of being the victim of chemical weapons attacks.

If the options on the table escalate from what is being talked about now (limited air strikes as punishment and a warning) to something far more aggressive (e.g. a no-fly zone or targeting the Assad regime itself), then I would be more open to the proxy war idea.

But as of right now, it looks to me like an attempt to draw a hard line in the sand to keep the chemical weaponry genie in the bottle.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Syria by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 06:37:22 AM EST
Bombing Syria would be intended to send a message that the US and Barack Obama are still willing to use force if countries cross whatever line in the sand is drawn. 

Afghanistan was a righteous war.

Iraq should not have happened.




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."

The objective for Syria is pretty easy to discern by lm (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 07:35:59 AM EST
The idea is to punish use of chemical weapons in a way that will stand as a warning to other regimes.

A good case can be made that this is an unfeasible objective. But it's pretty clear that sending this message is what the objective is and that the objective is no more than this.

It would be different if the options being put on the table were more conducive to regime change like they were in Libya or Iraq.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
Hmm by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 09:06:51 AM EST
The UN resolution for Libya said something similar and the UK and US used that resolution to air bomb the crap out of Gaddafi's forces. This one has a wording where 'aiding civilians' can be interpreted as 'bombing the crap out of Assads forces so it's impossible for him to fight' 

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
IIRC, the Libya resolution ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 06:18:08 PM EST
... explicitly called for a no-fly zone. At any rate, the Arab League certainly asked for a no-fly zone. The US and its allies were more than happy to comply by bombing every asset somehow connected to Libya's air power.

In the case of Syria, no one is calling for anything of the sort.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Yeah, here we go by lm (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:53:49 AM EST
UN Resolution 1973 (2011)  on Libya not only authorizes "all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack"  but also mandates a no-fly zone and authorizes member nations to use all necessary measures to enforce said zone. It's really a very broad resolution.

From what I understand, the draft resolution floated by the UK was much more limited and only authorized action to protect civilians from chemical attacks and did not seek to impose a no-fly zone.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Protecting Civilians from Chemical attacks by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:40:07 AM EST
If we eliminate the forces which performed said chemical attacks, aren't we acting within the constraints of the UN resolution  .

The resolution lets you do anything you like as long as you can say "we're protecting civilians by doing this".


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
sure, if by 'forces which performed'' ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #10 Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:48:03 AM EST
... you actually mean 'units that have access to chemical weaponry and the means to use it"

Were it me, I'd fire cruise missiles at an empty spot in the desert to write out "Assad is a penis' large enough to be seen with the naked eye from space and then send a telegram that next time chemical weapons are used, the missiles will be landing on military assets.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Harumph | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback