| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| We were always there to help them, but they're not prepared to help us. Donald Trump |
Remind me, prez, when was that? When was America prepared to help us Europeans? I'll give you a list of when one or other of us was under the cosh so you can tick them off:
1948-9 Berlin airlift You certainly sprang to the aid of West Berlin. As did the UK and France. All three of us were defending our occupation zones.
1956 Hungary No, you bottled that one.
1968 Czechoslovakia And that one.
And that's about it really. Thanks for reminding us.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
More from the Department of Consequences.
By way of chatter over coffee with the electricians currently on site.
On the 1st April, the wages for the apprentices they employ will go up by 45%, overnight.
What will the consequence be? They will make one of the apprentices redundant immediately. That apprentice will not be able to transfer to another firm of electricians. Because they are all freezing recruitment or getting rid of their apprentices as well.
So the intended "improvement" for young people on minimum wage is that there will be fewer young people in employment.
Rinse and repeat for all small businesses, especially pubs and restaurants and the like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This applies to all minimum wage schemes. And for that matter any interference in the free market for wages, including by trade unions. Which is not to say they should never be used but it should always be borne in mind.
The AE aspect of this is the widespread assumption that all wage rises are ipso facto 'a good thing'. An extension of the doctrine that some sections of society are automatically to be supported and others just as automatically opposed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The Knesset is debating whether to bring in the death penalty for certain acts of terrorism. Israel was set up as a liberal democracy and hence had a very restrictive death penalty, standard practice for liberal democracies of the time.
So restrictive that it has only been used once, after the trial of Adolf Eichmann. If the proposal goes ahead, and if they apply it, then an important no-going-back milestone will have been passed. Palestinians can fairly argue that killing people (o.n.o.) in the defence of their homeland is not the most capital of crimes.
However, it should not be assumed that a death penalty being in the offing (!) is necessarily a bad thing as far as anti-Israel terrorists are concerned. It is an observable practice that, when it is known apprehended terrorists won't be facing the death penalty, the forces of law and order all too often operate an informal shoot-to-kill policy (as is was termed in Northern Ireland--and Gibraltar).
In other words, making sure the death penalty is moot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Sudan's Army Accuses Ethiopia of Backing RSF After "Seizure of Kurmuk" Agencies |
Not you might think the most important news of the day. There you would be wrong. It may herald the end of days. Or at any rate a descent into August 1914-style triggering of larger scale conflict. The pattern-of-alliances that might achieve this goes something like this:
(1) Ethiopia has a long-standing border dispute with Sudan and maintains a large camp of Sudanese rebel RSF on their side of the border presumably because of this.
(2) Ethiopia cannot afford to do this, the camp is funded by the UAE which backs the RSF as the new government of Sudan.
(3) This is opposed by Saudi Arabia which is funding the Tigrean armed opposition to the Ethiopian government.
(4) The Tigreans (and other anti-Addis Ababa Ethiopian minorities) are supported by the Somalis who are opposed to Ethiopia's long-standing demands for 'a port on the Red Sea' which would require severing a chunk of Somalia.
(5) The Somalis are opposed by 'Somaliland' a chunk of Somalia that has successfully broken away and has just been recognised by Israel as a sovereign state. Somaliland was originally supported by Ethiopia but has been at war with Ethiopia (over a different border dispute) for more or less the whole of its existence.
(6) The 'war lord' Khalifa Haftar controls the eastern half of Libya and supports his fellow rebel 'war lords', the RSF, whose main area of sustenance is Darfur, adjacent to Libya but at the opposite end of Sudan from Kurmuk.
(7) Egypt supports the official government forces (a) in Sudan against the RSF and (b) in Libya against Khalifa Haftar.
(8) Egypt is in a state of long-term hostility with Ethiopia over the building of a huge dam on the Blue Nile which would affect the White Nile by the time it reaches Egypt. (And Sudan, but that is the least of its current problems.)
(9) The UAE has broken with Saudi Arabia over their joint support of the anti-Houthi forces in Yemen.
(10) The Houthis are supported by the Iranians and are currently firing missiles at Israel.
(11) The Egyptians, the Saudis and Israel have long maintained a tacit alliance based on opposition to other regional powers, notably Turkey and Iran, but essentially based on propping up the status quo.
(12) The UAE, the chief rivals of the Saudis in the Arabian peninsula, appears to be following a policy of supporting any forces that threaten the status quo, for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained.
There's a lot more but I've already exceeded the statutory ten point limit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The rescue of the second American airman reminds us of the adage "War is war by other means". Throughout history wars have been a popular means of settling disputes because they are an expression of the sum desire the two disputants are prepared to put into the dispute. Hundreds, thousands, millions might die but
| To the victor, the spoils. |
This is no longer true. Nobody is quite sure who wins today's wars. Even 'who-gets-what' at the end of them will be up for grabs again a little way down the line. Or, more likely, they refuse to give whatever it was up now the guns are silent and everyone's gone home.
Today's wars break out because someone at or near the top was a bit bored and decided it was time for one. Or someone else told him they're having a bash so why not come along for the ride. Or they thought it was just a skirmish but the other side skirmished right back at them. 'We're not having that.' 'Nor are we.'
Wars now break out in fits of inattention because, in their modern version, nobody ever dies. A whole bunch of stuff might get destroyed but nobody cares much about that, it's all just numbers on an accountant's spreadsheet and anyway it will be paid for in the distant future. Re-building always boosts the GNP per head. What counts is
| The body bags came back empty. |
So you're all set for another one. Ding, ding! It's like London buses. There's probably an electronic thingy somewhere saying how many months till the next one. But hey, at this rate we'll soon get bored with wars and ask AI who would have won and settle for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
The consensus within Conspiracy Corner, is that Vladdy the Baddy is not going to allow agent Donald to leave NATO just yet. Vlad surely wants to wreck NATO for ever, not just split it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I have come to the view that NATO will be all the better for not having America within its ranks. Even post-Trump America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
When an oil pipeline gets blown up by saboteurs, the people who did it may not be caught but who they are working for is usually clear enough. Somebody who doesn't want the oil getting through and there are not many candidates who want that.
When it is isn't quite blown up--when a coupla haversacks of explosives are left somewhat near the pipeline in heavily wooded country nobody visits from one year to the next--things are not so straightforward.
* It could be one of the above (who have failed miserably and unaccountably) or
* It could be somebody who wanted one of the above to be accused (and have succeeded).
When it is a pipeline carrying Russian oil and the haversacks are found in a Hungarian-speaking part of Serbia after the pipeline has served Serbian needs but just before it is due to serve Hungarian needs, and the Serbian government is in close cahoots with the Hungarian government at the behest of the Russian government to blame the Ukrainian government for interrupting Hungarian supplies of Russian oil, and the pro-Russian Hungarian government is facing national elections in a week's time and is miles behind the anti-Russian Hungarian opposition in the polls and the pro-Hungarian and pro-Russian American government, in the person of their Vice-President, is due in town then there can only be one person responsible.
| J D Vance wrote: | | You might find these useful, Viktor. See you Saturday. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I remain fascinated by the USA, Israel, Iran and various Gulf states discussing (if that's the right word) the future of the Hormuz Strait. Like I said before, they can talk till they're blue in the face, they can enshrine agreements they've all signed up to on tablets of stone, they can do anything they like, it still won't change the status of the Hormuz Strait.
| It's an international waterway and nothing anyone says or does to the contrary can affect that. |
Yes, anyone is free to use force, or the threat of force, to do what so e'er they will about ships passing through it, but when push (a British tanker) comes to shove (sails unmolested toll-free through the Strait) the British government will be totally in order bombing the shit out of anyone who thinks otherwise because
| It would be an Act of War, pure and simple. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
A situation that illustrates some of the problems of an international strait in time of war.
1. The Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are 'high seas'. Any ship, naval or merchant, can sail freely in them, across them and between them (leaving aside the Turkish Straits which require a book in themselves).
2. Two of the 'riparian states', Ukraine and Russia, are at war.
3. In the course of the war, Russia captured Mariupol and its adjacent coast, thereby removing Ukraine from riparian status so far as the Sea of Azov is concerned and since that left only one riparian state, Russia, the international sea has been temporarily (or permanently) turned into a 'Russian lake'.
4. There is no longer an absolute right for other nations to either sail in the Sea of Azov or pass the Kerch Strait, joining the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.
5. The Ukrainians are currently waging an offensive that might reach the Sea Of Azov. If they do the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait become 'high seas' again and anyone can sail in or across either. (Notwithstanding 'establishing a blockade' that also requires a book.)
6. The Russians cannot argue they can disregard this as a 'fortune of war' because they made no pre-war claims that Mariupol was Russian territory so Ukraine's recapture of Mariupol would not be a 'fortune of war' but a restoration of the status quo ante.
7. However, the status quo ante is not totally clear. After the building of the Kerch Bridge (which happened before the war) Russia prevented ships passing through the Kerch Strait on various technical grounds and these were never tested.
8. In international law the building of a bridge across an international waterway does not affect the status of the strait but it does confer some rights on the bridge builder(s) which can legitimately affect free passage so long as they do not prevent it.
9. If the war ends in a formal peace treaty, the status of the Sea of Azov, the Kerch Strait and the Kerch Bridge will presumably be either regularised or not require regularisation depending on the territorial settlement.
10 If the war ends without a formal treaty, the situation will require 'testing'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Yes, anyone is free to use force, or the threat of force, to do what so e'er they will about ships passing through it, but when push (a British tanker) comes to shove (sails unmolested toll-free through the Strait) the British government will be totally in order bombing the shit out of anyone who thinks otherwise because |
| It would be an Act of War, pure and simple. |
To my mind you have this the wrong way round. As Iranian territory has been attacked without a UN Security Council resolution, the question now arises whether Iran could invoke the laws of war and take proprtionate action in self defence. Do these actions against tankers, and other shipping seem proprtionate, given that Iran is under attack, and a land invasion (Kharg Island) is being planned and a war is on. Is it reasonable for Iran to close the Strait, and inspect any ships that transit along it. The toll is being charged for the use of Iranian territorial waters, ie its bit of the strait.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It would be an Act of War, pure and simple.
To my mind you have this the wrong way round. |
OK.
| As Iranian territory has been attacked without a UN Security Council resolution, the question now arises whether Iran could invoke the laws of war and take proprtionate action in self defence. |
I was referring to a situation after the principals had agreed about the Strait of Hormuz between themselves. How the situation has arisen is irrelevant.
| Do these actions against tankers, and other shipping seem proprtionate, given that Iran is under attack, and a land invasion (Kharg Island) is being planned and a war is on. Is it reasonable for Iran to close the Strait, and inspect any ships that transit along it. |
I agree that Iran is quite entitled to carry out these actions during hostilities.
| The toll is being charged for the use of Iranian territorial waters, ie its bit of the strait. |
This cannot be correct.
* 'Territorial waters' extend out by twelve miles.
* The Strait is twenty-one miles wide.
* So the whole Strait is theoretically part of either Iran's or Oman's territorial waters.
* Which means both nations' territorial water rights are overborne by the world's right to free navigation.
If ships can just go through on the Omani side, then surely nobody will pay the toll. Consider the UK, France and the Straits of Dover.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I agree that Iran is quite entitled to carry out these actions during hostilities. |
| Wiley wrote: | | The toll is being charged for the use of Iranian territorial waters, ie its bit of the strait. |
| Mick Harper wrote: |
This cannot be correct.
|
It appears to be the case the tankers and shipping that left, were sailing out of Iranian waters between Qeshm and Larak Islands. (the toll booth)
If the strait becomes open, we will have to see if this changes and if there still is a fee.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
So far no one appears to have risked the Omani side of the strait. It looks like one condition is that the permission of the Iranian armed forces is still required even if you exit that side?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
