Syria, Chemicals and War

Several days ago, I posted this on Twitter:

I know, it’s a flippant, loose, possibly ignorant response to what was (then) our possible response to the chemical weapons deployment in Syria. That’s what you get for only having 140 characters to play with on Twitter.

But I stand by it. And I’m pleased that our Prime Minister took the issue of war/a clinical strike to the legislature, and that they voted against it. The media were hyperventilating over how this result weakened David Cameron, but I think it’s one of the strongest, most mature things he’s done since walking into No. 10.

And now that Obama has followed suit – citing the vote in Westminster specifically – I think Cameron will come out all the stronger.

I’m still deeply concerned that the war drum beats on in D.C. though. And it seems like the majority of the legislative branch will vote for war. There’s even worrying talk that Britain’s parliament may vote again once we get word that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

The civil war in Syria is horrific. I mourn the loss of innocent people there, I really do. if someone wants to set up some refugee camps and needs monetary support, then tell me where to sign up. If you want to advocate clearing the trade embargoes and restrictions in Syria and anywhere else in the world, then I’ll stand by that – the only real way to guarantee security and peace in the long term. (I’ll show you a Penn & Teller clip tomorrow that perfectly explains why this works).

But we’re talking about picking winners and losers in a intricate and difficult war with too many complexities even for the Syrians themselves to understand. It’s not a war with “good” side (i.e. “the rebels”) and a “bad” side (i.e. Assad).

Yes, Assad is a monster. Maybe he or his supporters deployed those chemicals that John Kerry claims killed 1,400+ people. But the only other significant time chemical weapons were used in Syria, a UN inspection found it was rebel forces who had deployed them.

And “the rebels” are not one group. It’d be great if they were like the plucky American minutemen, fighting for freedom and independence, simply pursuing a classical liberal democratic republic. But they’re not. There isn’t two sides to this war – there’s at least seven at the last count. At least two groups of rebel forces are directly linked to Al-Qaeda. So we’re going to fight Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and back them up in Syria?

I’d love to see Assad removed from power – but replaced with what? The two million or-so Christians living in Syria are protected by the Assad regime. What happens to then once he’s gone and replaced with – possibly – something even worse?

Maybe it won’t be that bad. Maybe whoever from the rebel forces rises to the top will be much better than what they replace. But in a situation so complex, and with Iran, China, Russia and more involved and looking on with interest, surely the most dangerous thing for British and American political leaders to have now is certainty?

Advertisements

Andy Jones TV Season 5 Episode 10

Rand Paul 2016?

 

Andy Jones TV Season 5 Episode 8

A viewer emails: “re the current economic situation, doesn’t it stand that if austerity (i.e. cuts) work and investment (i.e. growth) doesn’t, then why is America’s economy doing better than your country’s and Europe?”

Boston Tragedy: Reality Check.

I know it’s the height of pretension to quote yourself, but reporting the news on-air today about the awful events in Boston made me think of this:

Let’s hope this awful event committed by a tiny number of sickening individuals isn’t used to remove yet more of our freedoms. Because if that’s what happens, then the people who instigate these atrocities are the only ones who win.

Personally, if you’re feeling down and unsure of what to do today, as well as donating to a charity or support group, I think the patriotic thing to do is go here and buy a metallic Bill of Rights.

The best thing we can do is carry on as normal. And if you’re American, keep upholding your fourth amendment rights.

Peace and love.

A Guns Schools and Violence Reality Check

The recent mass-shootings in the US are nothing short of tragic. But we have to remember that they’re an anomaly. These things don’t happen that often and you’re probably more likely to win the lottery than be killed in a mass-shooting. This doesn’t distract from the real pain and suffering that the people involved are going through. But you can’t legislate against statistical anomalies.

There’s calls to not only regulate guns, but also some really unpleasant stuff being said about people with Asberger’s Syndrome. Seriously? Do we really think this 100% non-violent mental illness is responsible for the killings in the Sandy Hook Elementary School? The perpetrator of that crime did have Asberger’s – but that wasn’t why he committed that crime. He did it because he was a violently disturbed individual.

And the calls to ban ‘violent’ video games have come around again. Apparently he played “Call of Duty” a lot. No kidding. No offense grandpa, but so does everyone else under 40. He also probably brushed his teeth with Colgate. Shall we ban that too? Video games are the current thing that parents and authority figures fear, though they’re something that young people enjoy, and the generation before just don’t understand.

Stated differently, video games are the new rock ‘n roll. Remember Charles Manson saying that the Beatles inspired him to commit his horrific crimes? Remember the calls of how “rock & roll has got to go”? If you were born between 1945-1975, you’ll probably remember how crazy it sounded when your parents and government-types screamed that nonsense. Well baby-boomers, I’m sorry to say you’re doing the same thing to us here in Generation Wired. Video games are the new rock & roll and you might just never get it, the way your parents didn’t get The Rolling Stones or Elvis. Or the way their parents didn’t get Miles Davis and Chet Baker.

That’s just my feelings on this. Remember that saying “If someone says ‘there ought to be a law’, there probably oughtn’t”? I think that summarises the hysteria against guns at the moment. (And the hysteria for them, if you’re conspiracy theorist Alex Jones I guess).

So in the interest of a little objective sanity, here’s an important video from one of my favourite commentators and journalists out there, reason.com‘s Nick Gillespie:

Just to recap Nick’s points: Violent crime (including violent crime involving guns) has fallen significantly in the last 20 years. Murder, rape, assaults are half of what they were in the early 1990s. And according to the US Department of Justice’s own figures, violent crime involving the use of weapons has fallen at the same rate.

There’s no correlation that suggests mass shootings have increased in recent years. Simply, they haven’t. The data is clear. And mass-killings more generally actually peaked in the US in 1929 (the year of a particularly awful tragedy at the hands of a pyromaniac, if I’m not mistaken).

According to the National Centre for Education Statistics, schools are significantly safer now than they were 20 years ago: the violent crime victimisation rate fell from 53 per 1,000 students to 14. An incredible fall of 74% from the early 90s.

At the time of writing, there’s now only two states that don’t have ‘right to carry’ laws in the US (i.e. laws that mean you can carry a concealed handgun). The unprecedented liberalisation (in the proper sense of the word) means that there’s over 300 million guns in the US and at least one in 45% of all households. All this despite the massive fall in gun-related violent crime. In fact, the proliferation of guns in America that are held by law-abiding citizens are probably a reason why the crimes are falling. A legally held gun is significantly more likely to be used to prevent a crime than instigate one.

And as Nick points out, this call for bans on “assault weapons” (there’s a correlation between how passionately someone wants to ban them and their inability to define what one actually is), would lead to no change in the level of gun crime. And that’s at best. A report by the US governments National Criminal Justice Reference Service concludes in a comprehensive study (where you get the feeling they really wanted to prove assault weapons should be outlawed): “Should [the so-called assault weapon ban] be renewed, the ban’s effects would on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

We don’t need new laws. We just need to morn the loss of these precious people that we have lost. You want to solve the problems of the world? We libertarians cracked that a long time ago: More freedom. More love.

Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech

A sad day, but an inevitable one. Here’s Congressman Paul, stumbly, awkward but totally true:

Good bye Ron, we’ll miss you in that grand old chamber.

More Reasons Why America is Doing Better Than the UK

It’s simple, it’s not that the US has a left-wing administration that’s increasing “investment” and the UK has a right-wing administration that’s imposing “savage cuts”. Okay, Obama has increased spending (and things would have gotten better faster if he didn’t) but overall, spending is down in the US (mostly because of the majority of state and local governments have been sensible).

In the UK, spending is still increasing. Certain departments have had cuts, but every single month of this coalition government has increased. And you combine that fact with our higher taxes, more authoritarian government and more centralised control, well, you see what you get. A mess.

And why has America done better? The New York Times explains all, with the help of this graph:

It’s the states wot’s won it, but the subsequent dip in unemployment and improving economy are going to be very useful to Obama in the forthcoming election…