Walsingham

My key points: 1. As Monte, myself, and Stratfor.com have pointed out more or less from the start, the rebels haven't the organisational arms, or discipline to win the ground war by themselves 2. The public, in their infinite wisdom regarding military and political reality insisted that something muts be done about the atrocities I think ane can be fairly sure were happening. 3. The various navies and airforces, under budgetary pressure licked their lips and announced that they were fully up for some sort of nice tidy lathering at long range 4. The notion that a short sharp smack with a rolled up cruise missile would bring those naughty Africans to heel appealed to a political class who seem violently opposed to learning anything about military history. So we kicked off. 5. Without a credible ground force, the extent of effects the navy and airforces could deliver were always going to be limited to big ugly targets, and that in turn could only continue so long as Ghaddafi Inc. behaved like cretins. They've learned as fast as one might expect, and we can expect the utility of long range fire to diminish to almost nil in the next few days. Total result: abortive action in which hundreds of millions have been spent on munitions and civilians have almost certainly died in addition to what could have been expected. With the only effect being that we can expect the civil war to continue at a slower and consequently more bloody pace.

You chaps may be interested in some of the stories of nuclear accidents at sea. I couldn't find the one I wanted, but this one about the is pretty good.

Frankly, if there's anything specious here it's your high-calorie analogies, old boy. See how many people you can convince that the full weight of the law should only fall on the weak - and only when the judges stand to benefit directly from dispensing punishment. It's not about "at once" either - rather, it's about "at all". I'd rather have some justice than no justice. And bacon. Joking reluctantly dimmed for a moment, the justice you're talking about costs money. Lots and lots of money, and blood. And oil, now I think about it. Point being you can't expect a prolonged pattern of uneconomic interventions in the name of justice. It's fundamentally unsustainable. Unless, I guess, you had a situation where there was a glut of money from other economic behaviour, or you massively lowered the cost of the interventions. Improving available funds might arguably come directly from some sort of cold-blooded drive to secure cheap energy. While cheaper interventions would probably come from using less trained forces, or less accurate weapons. Neither course strikes me as going to win the popular vote. BTW, before I forget, I have to applaud Russia for standing by their principles and obstructing any action which would lower the price of the oil and gas they export to Europe. A 'you too' point, which I know won't impress Numbers, but isn't aimed at him.

Can we please stop the entirely specious nonsense about how we have to fight every dictator at once or none at all? Does a surgeon have to cure everyone at once? Do I have to eat all my bacon at once? Note: buy more bacon.

weirtdly, yet honestly, I can say that I had been about to post something of that very sort. My source is fried black pudding, a sunny day, improving physical health, and plenty to do. And Verdi.

According to the greatest man who ever lived, the founder of rock and roll was .

Much evidence suggests Blair et al went well out of their way to silence/ obfuscate contrary opinions and make sure that war was presented as legal despite them knowing it was on shaky ground. I don't know if you've read the argument put forward by the attorney general or not. But In it he specifically mentions that wars have been proven as legal in the face of a 'humanitarian crisis' (wording might be slightly different. I'm going from memory here. I felt this was worth mentioning as the 'Stop The War' coalition cut that section from their copy on their website. Interestingly though, the AG specifically states that he didn't consider Iraq in a humanitarian crisis - all those death squads and genocide struck me as a humanitarian crisis far exceeding Libya, but you make your own mind up. ~~ Numbers: Profitable is one way to put it. Sustainable is another. ANY ACTION, WARLIKE OR NOT, can only continue so long as there is the economic means to sustain it. Or to put it another way, we couldn't afford to sustain any meaningful action in (for example) DRC long enough to do the country any good. Not without making sacrifices most people would not vote for. Whereas intervening in a working oil producer has the benefit of at least aiding our economy (in theory). Again, I don't think you can crunch the numbers any other way.

You've been pretty civilised in your reply, so I'll refrain from calling you deranged. 1. Not worrying about being stabbed sounds fine until you've been stabbed. I've been stabbed, however inexpertly. Ditto shot at. 2. I don't mind taking my chances with people who haven't stabbed anyone before, but contending with all the ones who we know will o around stabbing people is perverse. 3. One way we seem to diverge is on the notion that you can predict who is going to reoffend. You say you can't. I say you can. Anecdotally to myself and to the press police and prison officials are saying we are releasing people who are known to be seriously violent (either physically or sexually), and pretty much crossing our fingers. 4. If a hospital released patients with serious communicable diseases to the tune of more than 30% we'd want to know what the **** they were playing at.

My singing teacher did say that a lot of schools in teh UK now have glee clubs. But then many British highs schools now have 'prom', and if that isn't a sign of impending doom then I don't know what is.

I was accusing Monte of being Hugh Bicheno, not you Gfted. And he hasn't just written about the American Revolution. I'm reading his history of the Falklands right now, and it's ****ing excellent. Speaking of Somalia, the ICC recently recommended fully armed protection of vessels off Africa and called on all governments to do something about the problem, due to the billions cost (and something about environmental damage caused by hundred mile detours. You know, just in case anyone says we always look after economic interests, because we aren't. Surely what we come back to again and again is this question of when is force justified, and when is it achievable? The overlap has to be when tinpot goons in resource important nations start committing atrocities. I mean, what's the alternative?

Personally I can't really get too much mad optimism. So I actually enjoyed the first couple of episodes of Glee, before it got stale. However, I agree that glee clubs are not a cultural renaissance. ...Unless they've somehow found a way to stop teenagers pretending to be far more cynical than they've any right to be. In which case I will sponsor one. With a cricket bat and my free time.

The cage door is open, but the beast sleeps, baby.

Didn't like it that much, but it was much better than the movie treatment in the OP, that's for sure. How can you not like it? !

Particularly good article discussing the Italians' studied apathy. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-b...article1949552/

Bauhaus, Bela Lugosi's Dead. Foreshadows of Massive Attack, now I think about it.

Three different broken bits of me causing trouble this morning. I really am a bit of cripple.

LOL

I haven't explained myself very well. 1) I mean that crime and punishment are inseparable from culture and economy. Bringing in outside examples can be interesting, but also (potentially) grossly misleading. 2) My point here was that the message in other countries seems to suggest that rehabilitation CAN work. My point was that it isn't in this country. My instinct is that we have faield because we neither rehabilitate NOR protectively incarcerate. You missed my much clearer point 3, getting distracted by the inverse ratio question. The point here is what level of reoffending is acceptable. My line is that 39% reoffending involving violence and sexual violence is completely unacceptable. It means we are releasing people to commit crimes, and completely innocent people are suffering. If that fails to bother you I suggest you have in turn spent too much time in your own head and not enough time on the street.

Agreed. You are Hugh Bicheno, and I claim my five pounds. In fact I'd tend to agree with American non-intervention on this one, on several levels. 1. Obama was voted in on a soft power ticket. He has a note rom his mum to avoid this sort of thing. 2. US energy security doesn't depend on Libya, nor (I'm guessing now) will US oil prices rise much in comparison to European levels 3. Now would be an excellent time to remind Europe about not expecting the US to act as a charitable defence organisation. Particularly not as we are cutting defence budgets like an ill-advised perm. We can afford to, and probably ought to police the mediterranean. 4. It is particularly telling that Italy - who depend on Libyan supplies more than anyone, and to a significant degree - aren't taking part. They clearly think Ghaddafi Inc. is going to be in charge when the dust settles. And I'd have to agree with them. Having said all that, I don't agree with Numbers about the necessity of attacking other large players. If I find a rat and a bear in my kitchen I can hate both yet be excused for only poking the rat. ~~ Aside: Masterfade, wtf? Non-consensual sex with her husband is rape. The notion that is isn't is some old testament hangover about ownership implied by marriage.

Firstly, this is a discussion about the UK system, not the NZ or even Norwegian system. Secondly I haven't said - at least not in this thread - that the solution is more draconian measures. Thirdly, even if 61% don't reoffend, and I don't see that anywhere in the article (the article only talks about immediate reoffending). The point is that the current percentage reoffending violently is quite high enough to be reasonably seen as too damn high. Not to mention the apparent upward trend in the figures.

I can see where you're coming from Numbers, but I'm not budging just yet. Libya may not have a capability to lob missiles at Florida, but it has the ability to attack shipping and aviation in the mediterranean, and a proven willingness to sponsor international terrorism. Although arguably the latter may have only increased in likelihood thanks to the attacks. The notion that attacks on aviation, where US citizens are at risk, constitute a clear and present danger dates at least as far back as the 1989 avianca bombing. Which lead to the deployment of US special forces and secret surveillance equipment into Colombia. EDIT: Jacob Zuma is now calling for regime change to be ruled out, and an end to attacks which might harm civilians. Which essentially means no attacks on ground targets. Again, this is precisely what I predicted. The international community is quite content for this to turn into a civil war provided the 'holy' concept of non intervention is obeyed. Although to be fair, one wonders if this isn't a good thing as someone might ask why we don't do something about the war in DR Congo.

What makes you think he doesn't?

I've got agree with mkreku on this one. Kim Jong rules the bonkers roost.

I'd have thought that by now most foaming loons would have learned to avoid the tautological inefficiency of calling America 'Nazi', and just adopted the word 'american' as meaning something worse than Nazi. Pro-tip there, loons.

I don't know why I'm bothering to point this out, but he does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_..._affairs_powers A country which had to wait for its legislature to decide on action in the event of threats to its security would last about as long as it took for its neighbours to cease laughing hysterically. BTW, when you say sock puppet, are we talking a home made one, or a fancy Sesame Street one? EDIT: A colleague informs me that a good example of what happens when a state relies on its legislature to make war is early Poland in its era as a republic. You may not have heard of this before, which is probably attributable to early Poland being systematically minced by its neighbours.