Not much fun for those of us who must've been off school the day that the class was taught how to like sport.
Pity we poor sport dislikers. We find it easy enough to avoid watching sport but the trouble is that it's much harder to avoid hearing all about it in the workplace... endlessly...
If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.
Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.
At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.
I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
True, Charles Kennedy might be the only LD heavyweight left. He will probably keep his seat since he was ousted 9 years ago for the ridiculous charge of binge drinking not for policy, he is a lefty and not in the coalition and helds the title of the most popular LD leader.
After the car crash of the coalition, he will probably take over.
I know all teams think they have it bad, but we will be playing against van Persie, Adebayor, Nasri, Fabregas, Clichy & Sagna next season! The best players from our 07/08 team which was probably our best side since the invincibles
Kolo's gone at the game, I cant include him!
If QPR get Hleb I'm ripping up the season ticket I havent got!
@rosschawkins: excl: Electoral Commission say deciding whether to take action against Farage
Elections were run perfectly well before the Electoral Commission existed. A complete waste of money. In fact, if anything things have got more inefficient since it was established.
If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.
Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.
At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.
I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.
All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.
And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.
Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
Not much fun for those of us who must've been off school the day that the class was taught how to like sport.
Pity we poor sport dislikers. We find it easy enough to avoid watching sport but the trouble is that it's much harder to avoid hearing all about it in the workplace... endlessly...
7-8% would be about one-third of their 2010 general election vote and would equate to about 2.3 million votes nationwide.
The fewer votes the Lib Dems take nationally the more important the distribution of those votes locally becomes.
On that theory the LD can keep 30 seats with just 2% of the vote nationally, in practice it doesn't work. The LD currently get 1.8 million votes on 6%, for the 20k in 30 seats, 10k in 30 seats and 2,5k in 570 you need 2.925 million votes.
It totals to about 2.3 million votes, as I said. You've added an extra 600k in. 2.3 million votes would equate to about one-third of their vote in 2010.
My proposition does not extend to the Lib Dems holding 30 seats on 2% of the vote, which is a very different thing to holding 30 seats on 8%. The former is absurd, whereas the latter is possible if their vote is sufficiently concentrated.. Worth remembering the 1997 general election when the Lib Dems lost votes but more than doubled the number of seats held.
True I made an error on double counting those 30 seats, however that is still half a million votes more than with 6%, that's the point, they have fallen so low that even the Zulu strategy is suffering. On 1997 LD lost only 1% but gained plenty of Tory seats on a 5.5% swing plus tactical voting. This time its the LD that are losing more votes with a 5.5% swing to the Tories however tactical voting might still be there but what is the difference between the LD and CON these days?
I never mentioned the 6% figure. In my post I also pointed out that if their vote is just a bit more spread out they could end up with less than ten seats.
My point being that at that vote level - just below 10% - it is only local concentration of the Lib Dem vote, due to tactical voting and personal votes, that matters at all. It matters a lot more than when they are on ~20% of the vote.
I mention 6% not 8% because they have fallen even further and there is the prospect that the decline might continue. I personally believe that the cutoff for the Zulu strategy is 8%, anything bellow that level and the personal concentration and tactical voting will start to fail.
If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.
Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.
At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.
I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.
All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.
And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.
Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes · 6 mins AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARG WHEN WILL THEY LEARN pic.twitter.com/NagofB7wVJ
After going on about the evil's of the Murdochs, seems Ed more than happy to pose with the Sun...
If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.
Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.
At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.
I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.
All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.
And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.
Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
I have a feeling Charles Kennedy will rule himself out if/when the next Lib-Dem leadership contest is.
Whilst "heavy drinking" was indeed a strange reason to dump a leader, I think Kennedy's problem was far more serious than that - He certainly appeared on TV clearly drunk many times during the last Parliament and whilst it's hard to know where "heavy drinking" ends and "alcoholism" begins I would suspect CK falls into the later category.
Thankfully it appears he has turned things around and found sobriety, but my guess is that he won't want the pressure and stress that goes with leading a political party again.
He could well be "king maker" this time though. Paddy will lose of a lot of clout when Clegg goes...
If the LDs were to win less than 10% at GE2015 it wouldn't matter about tactical voting or personal votes, they'd lose most of their MPs anyway. Those things only matter once you assume they get up to about 14-15%.
Yes: at 15-16%, and given the rise of UKIP, the LibDems keep the bulk (perhaps 40) of their seats.
At 8% or below, they'll be sharing a taxi. And it won't be a people carrier one, either.
I continue to think Charles Kennedy for next leader is the best way to play LibDemaggedon. Sub 8% means very, very few MPs (at 8%, it will be 3-to-4) , of which CK will definitely be one. Hard to see how he won't be leader under these circumstances. 50-1 is clear value.
In a taxi scenario the Lib Dems could be left with the following MPs: Carmichael, Kennedy, Clegg, Foster, Farron, Lamb and Laws.
All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.
And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.
Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
I mention 6% not 8% because they have fallen even further and there is the prospect that the decline might continue. I personally believe that the cutoff for the Zulu strategy is 8%, anything bellow that level and the personal concentration and tactical voting will start to fail.
I place my trust in ICM.
Edit: And more to the point, the recent decline in the Lib Dem share has been partly due to a move to the Greens, which I don't think will survive June, let alone the summer.
It will probably subside before England are knocked out of the World Cup.
OT EU Cameron allegedly reaching the "bargaining" stage on Juncker, wanting Lansley to supervise a cluster of Commission posts. Seems like a hard sell - it's one thing getting a low-key person without much of a record into a top job, but someone who couldn't be trusted with a domestic ministry getting to mess with multiple portfolios? I still reckon they'd be better picking Hague or Osborne and aiming for one of the top few slots.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
If they don't oust him by the conference he will stay until the inevitable end, which fittingly for the LD bunker is on the 70th anniversary of Germany surrendering.
I have viewed the LD core vote as being around 7% to 10%. Based on their overall vote comprising three factors, Core + Lefties + Protests. For them to lose all the Lefties and the Protests and drop below 10% does not feel plausible in a GE, the Euro's are different. So my guess is that on current trends the LDs will be in the 11% to 14% range at the GE. Seat wise this puts them in cliff edge situations similar to the Euros where they could lose circa 20 or 35 seats just depending on a small % falling the right/wrong way.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
What a humanitarian.
I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.
Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.
I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
"Recently a Tory aide described him to me as being like an unwelcome guest hanging around at the end of a party refusing to leave"
Ouch, LOL! :^O
Clearly Clegg is finished in the long-term, but I do think the Lib-Dems will carry on with him up until May 2015. I mean, who in their right mind would want to take over the Lib-Dems in their current state?
Far better to leave Clegg where he is and take the hit, then rebuild from the ruins of 2015 with whoever survives the slaughter...
Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
What a humanitarian.
You don't become one of the richest men in the world by being Mother Theresa, LOL.
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
What a humanitarian.
You don't become one of the richest men in the world by being Mother Theresa, LOL.
GIN
I fear it would be difficult to become any sort of man by being Mother Theresa.
Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.
That is also one of the issues Clegg neutralized early on by getting the majority of the LD MP's in the government, no Clegg no government posts for LD MP's.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
What a humanitarian.
You don't become one of the richest men in the world by being Mother Theresa, LOL.
GIN
I fear it would be difficult to become any sort of man by being Mother Theresa.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
What a humanitarian.
I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.
Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.
I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
Doing wars in the middle east does wonders on the oil price.
Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.
I do hope not !
My betting position looks substantially better with a mortally wounded Clegg floundering his way to the GE2015 line.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
What a humanitarian.
I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.
Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.
I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
Doing wars in the middle east does wonders on the oil price.
I'm fairly confident that my bet that oil will be over £50 at year end will be a winner.
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
Congress is now getting in line behind strikes, but W.H. still refusing. Jeff Zeleny @jeffzeleny 7m Closed-door Iraq briefing ends in Senate. Joe Manchin says air strikes might be only way they can regroup.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
What a humanitarian.
I once nearly incited a riot many years ago.
Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.
I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
Iraq is looking truly disastrous. If this goes on too long or as badly as it looks now start trying to find an electable republican for 2016. Really unfair considering who caused the mess but life is not fair. Ask the Liberal Democrats.
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
Mike OGH main article could be prescient. Up to now only a few LD MPs have called for Clegg to go. However, if Lord A's polling shows that more than half the LD MPs are under threat then a lot more LD MPs are likely to join the call for him to go. The MPs have the power to force a change far far quicker than the party. They saw off Ming and Charlie.
That is also one of the issues Clegg neutralized early on by getting the majority of the LD MP's in the government, no Clegg no government posts for LD MP's.
Yes but it could be viewed now as No Clegg and Yes to a £65k job. The Govt jobs are 80% complete with at most 11 months left.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
I have viewed the LD core vote as being around 7% to 10%. Based on their overall vote comprising three factors, Core + Lefties + Protests. For them to lose all the Lefties and the Protests and drop below 10% does not feel plausible in a GE, the Euro's are different. So my guess is that on current trends the LDs will be in the 11% to 14% range at the GE. Seat wise this puts them in cliff edge situations similar to the Euros where they could lose circa 20 or 35 seats just depending on a small % falling the right/wrong way.
Their (NEV) local election vote share has fallen every year this parliament: 16%, 15%, 13%, 11%.
Yet another 50 run partnership in good time. England desperately need one of these to go on if they are to get a grip on the game. Looking like a really interesting game though
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
I have viewed the LD core vote as being around 7% to 10%. Based on their overall vote comprising three factors, Core + Lefties + Protests. For them to lose all the Lefties and the Protests and drop below 10% does not feel plausible in a GE, the Euro's are different. So my guess is that on current trends the LDs will be in the 11% to 14% range at the GE. Seat wise this puts them in cliff edge situations similar to the Euros where they could lose circa 20 or 35 seats just depending on a small % falling the right/wrong way.
Their (NEV) local election vote share has fallen every year this parliament: 16%, 15%, 13%, 11%.
Thanks, 11% to 14% seems plausible at the GE. >15% is now looking to be for LD dreamers.
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
So where did ISIS get all their kit?
A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
Iraq is looking truly disastrous. If this goes on too long or as badly as it looks now start trying to find an electable republican for 2016. Really unfair considering who caused the mess but life is not fair. Ask the Liberal Democrats.
It will hit Rand Paul's chances if this goes on for long. It's clear that at least an american bombing campaign is needed but how can he support it? And if Baghdad falls the neocons will have a narrative to push back. The best he can do is to say "I was right of not supporting the syrian rebels, look what happened, I will support american airstikes on ISIS but I will never support boots on the ground".
From the FSA fighters they were beheading, from the Iraq army, and from Sunni states and donors who see them as a bullwark against the Shia?
The Sunni states are mainly backing the Islamic Front, another group. Groups like ISIS and al-Nusra generally view the various Sunni states as being illegitimate Western puppets.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
Are the Saudis really going to sit back and let the west bomb the army they have built (let's not pretend otherwise) off the map? We could be facing a serious parting of the ways here.
Buying oil futures is a little adventurous for me but if it wasn't....
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
So where did ISIS get all their kit?
A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
Iraq is looking truly disastrous. If this goes on too long or as badly as it looks now start trying to find an electable republican for 2016. Really unfair considering who caused the mess but life is not fair. Ask the Liberal Democrats.
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
The FSA was creamed by ISIS a long time ago, not sure in the chaos of an FSA victory over Assad ISIS would have lost from them.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
So where did ISIS get all their kit?
A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
Cogh america Cough
America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
From the FSA fighters they were beheading, from the Iraq army, and from Sunni states and donors who see them as a bullwark against the Shia?
The Sunni states are mainly backing the Islamic Front, another group. Groups like ISIS and al-Nusra generally view the various Sunni states as being illegitimate Western puppets.
We have just launched a Middle East edition of our glorious newspaper - the Sunni on Sunday!
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
If the Lib-Lab Pact is on, I bet Labour will take great delight in telling Clegg has has to quit before they could do business, just as Clegg once did to Brown...
That requirement is a given, imho - meanwhile, Clegg is safe until his polling figures are worse than Ming's. ; )
The Lib-Dems never went under 11% while Ming lead them;
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
So where did ISIS get all their kit?
A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
Cogh america Cough
America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
America gave tons of money, weapons and supplies to the syrian rebels despite the warnings that it will lead to terrorists getting the hands on them like Afghanistan in the 1980's, well guess what? Most of those ended in the hands of ISIS creating a sequel to the 1980's Afghanistan fiasco.
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
The FSA was creamed by ISIS a long time ago, not sure in the chaos of an FSA victory over Assad ISIS would have lost from them.
They only lost out to ISIS because the FSA ran out of money. If you're a rebel soldier in a civil war and you're not being paid not being armed properly, you go over to the other groups who can afford to arm and feed you. If the FSA had been able to overrun Assad, they would have taken over the wealthy Western parts of the country. Once they were recognised as the legitimate government, we could also have allowed them to take over Assad's bank accounts we have frozen.
No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
I think you are rewriting history there, his response on Syria was lackadaisical in the extreme. Obama when faced with the big calls has eventually made a half hearted one extremely late in the day.
A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
So where did ISIS get all their kit?
A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
Cogh america Cough
America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
America gave tons of money, weapons and supplies to the syrian rebels despite the warnings that it will lead to terrorists getting the hands on them like Afghanistan in the 1980's, well guess what? Most of those ended in the hands of ISIS creating a sequel to the 1980's Afghanistan fiasco.
I'm sure you'll be able to back up your claim that most of the weapons provided to the FSA ended up in the hands of ISIS. Oh wait, it's just your raw anti-American prejudice. Your assessment of Afghanistan is also a massive oversimplification, but given it's difficult to keep you straight on the facts of Syria, I won't open up another argument front.
America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
It would hardly be the first time Socrates. Have you seen Charlie Wilson's War? All along in these conflicts its been about trying to identify who are our real friends and who are our enemies.
It's impossible. Nobody there likes us. Except maybe Israel.
The best thing Obama can do now is repeal the law banning the US from exporting oil, so the price doesn't go through the ceiling.
No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
I think you are rewriting history there, his response on Syria was lackadaisical in the extreme. Obama when faced with the big calls has eventually made a half hearted one extremely late in the day.
Well, I would have taken a stronger line on Syria earlier, but the fact remains that he was the strongest on intervention of all Western leaders, and his hands were tied by the fact that a combination of Miliband's self-interested politicking and Cameron's cold feet withdrew the US's closest ally from the fray.
ISIS is a classic example of why you shouldn't fund rebel groups to get rid of enemy governments, in the end they become a more serious and uncontrollable threat than the last guy. Other examples are: Taliban, Libyan rebels, Latin American drug cartels, Latin American dictators and the Khmer Rouge.
A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.
And pb talks about con-ld battlegrounds.
It's almost reassuring, and also ludicrous.
Don't panic, Sean.
Barry is "concerned" and "watching events in Iraq" closely.
He is "considering all options" and "hasn't ruled anything out yet."
Some people, Socrates for example, even believe he may act decisively...
McCain: "We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history." "There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham: "What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary: "There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner: "I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
I'm no neocon, but I really can't see how we can allow ISIS to set up a de facto state across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It would be a breeding ground for al-Qaeda groups who could train and operate with impunity, and then use it as a basis for terrorist attacks abroad. In Iraq, we could simply bomb ISIS positions and let the Iraqi government do the fighting. God knows what we do in Syria though. As a result of Ed Miliband's intervention, we ended up not backing the moderate rebels, who have now been completely side lined. It's left a civil war with two unpalatable alternatives.
I think not overthrowing Assad might be a blessing, there is still Syria to fight against ISIS, i'm sure the syrian rebels had they won they would have been easy pickings for ISIS, Assad is too hard of a nutshell to crack.
With American logistical backing, the FSA would have been able to take out ISIS easily once they took over the Syrian state. I'm sure we'll be giving heavy backing to Maliki in the next month and then we will see how overwhelmed ISIS can get when confronted with a government with proper Western-backing.
The FSA was creamed by ISIS a long time ago, not sure in the chaos of an FSA victory over Assad ISIS would have lost from them.
So far as I can tell FSA and other associated Mujahideens including Al Qaeda are fighting around Homs, Aleppo and Damascus - though it seems Assad is well on top there.
ISIS is operating further east, establishing their de facto caliphate between the Tigris and Euphrates.
A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.
Nadal loses his first match at the Halle grass court tournament to Dustin Brown of Germany 6:4 6:1
It won't be long before Rafa is playing for Scotland, Jack.
Didn't know you supported the restoration of the Jacobite branch, Avery (at least I think the current claimant is a Spanish noble). Of course, it would be correct Scotland would be senior in such a union.
A psychotic caliphate is emerging in the Middle East (thanks Tony), which threatens global stability. American power is now so weak no one can fix it. This could engulf the world.
And pb talks about con-ld battlegrounds.
It's almost reassuring, and also ludicrous.
You don't really understand this internet thing do you?
No he will just prevaricate so long that most of the options won't be implementable.
You're kidding right? In Afghanistan, Obama committed to a major surge to combat the insurgency there. Obama was the guy leading the charge for a tough response on Ukraine, while the EU twiddled its thumbs. On Syria, he wanted to take tough action to provide logistical support to the FSA after the poison gas attacks, but the British parliament delayed things and then the HMG got cold feet and pulled out entirely.
I think you are rewriting history there, his response on Syria was lackadaisical in the extreme. Obama when faced with the big calls has eventually made a half hearted one extremely late in the day.
Well, I would have taken a stronger line on Syria earlier, but the fact remains that he was the strongest on intervention of all Western leaders, and his hands were tied by the fact that a combination of Miliband's self-interested politicking and Cameron's cold feet withdrew the US's closest ally from the fray.
On what basis were his hands tied? The UK's force projection capabilities are pathetic. It's not as if he needed us either politically or militarily.
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept 24m It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
These idiots don't even know who the different groups are in Syria. ISIS and al-Nusra were beheading FSA fighters. Anyone that thinks we were arming ISIS are about as thick as those idiots that thought Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda.
So where did ISIS get all their kit?
A combination of it being smuggled in from abroad via various international Islamist groups and from taking over Syrian army positions and their munition stores.
Cogh america Cough
America are helping smuggle in kit to ISIS? Are you serious?
America gave tons of money, weapons and supplies to the syrian rebels despite the warnings that it will lead to terrorists getting the hands on them like Afghanistan in the 1980's, well guess what? Most of those ended in the hands of ISIS creating a sequel to the 1980's Afghanistan fiasco.
I'm sure you'll be able to back up your claim that most of the weapons provided to the FSA ended up in the hands of ISIS. Oh wait, it's just your raw anti-American prejudice. Your assessment of Afghanistan is also a massive oversimplification, but given it's difficult to keep you straight on the facts of Syria, I won't open up another argument front.
"As the White House appeared poised to send military aid to Syrian rebels, new concerns arose that the weapons will inevitably fall into the hands of terrorist groups who count themselves among hundreds of factions that form the rag-tag Free Syrian Army."
Comments
Pity we poor sport dislikers. We find it easy enough to avoid watching sport but the trouble is that it's much harder to avoid hearing all about it in the workplace... endlessly...
I wonder if it's too warm to hibernate?
I know all teams think they have it bad, but we will be playing against van Persie, Adebayor, Nasri, Fabregas, Clichy & Sagna next season! The best players from our 07/08 team which was probably our best side since the invincibles
Kolo's gone at the game, I cant include him!
If QPR get Hleb I'm ripping up the season ticket I havent got!
All of those last three - all of which have majorities greater than 11,000 - would have to lose to make Kennedy the frontrunner for next leader.
And with Kennedy you also run the risk that Scotland votes for Independence, entirely ruling him out.
Probably Don Foster is a better bet. Besides Clegg and the other obvious leadership frontrunners he has the safest seat in England, so you don't have the Scottish dimension to worry about. That and his odds would surely be longer than 100-1.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARG WHEN WILL THEY LEARN pic.twitter.com/NagofB7wVJ
After going on about the evil's of the Murdochs, seems Ed more than happy to pose with the Sun...
Whilst "heavy drinking" was indeed a strange reason to dump a leader, I think Kennedy's problem was far more serious than that - He certainly appeared on TV clearly drunk many times during the last Parliament and whilst it's hard to know where "heavy drinking" ends and "alcoholism" begins I would suspect CK falls into the later category.
Thankfully it appears he has turned things around and found sobriety, but my guess is that he won't want the pressure and stress that goes with leading a political party again.
He could well be "king maker" this time though. Paddy will lose of a lot of clout when Clegg goes...
Edit: And more to the point, the recent decline in the Lib Dem share has been partly due to a move to the Greens, which I don't think will survive June, let alone the summer.
It will probably subside before England are knocked out of the World Cup.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/cameron-warming-juncker-302773
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100276131/can-nick-clegg-be-saved/
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 4h
Iraq told us to get out, Iraq is now falling, and Iraq now wants us to come back! Don't do it unless we get the OIL, and I mean ALL OF IT!
For them to lose all the Lefties and the Protests and drop below 10% does not feel plausible in a GE, the Euro's are different. So my guess is that on current trends the LDs will be in the 11% to 14% range at the GE. Seat wise this puts them in cliff edge situations similar to the Euros where they could lose circa 20 or 35 seats just depending on a small % falling the right/wrong way.
Some Soap dodging SWP types were protesting in the centre of Manchester, and were asking for signatures to see Tony Blair at The Hague for lying to us over Iraq.
I said, absolutely, Blair lied to me over Iraq, I was promised cheaper oil if we invaded Iraq, and he failed to deliver.
Mr. Anorak, he's like a reincarnation of St Barnabus.
Ouch, LOL! :^O
Clearly Clegg is finished in the long-term, but I do think the Lib-Dems will carry on with him up until May 2015. I mean, who in their right mind would want to take over the Lib-Dems in their current state?
Far better to leave Clegg where he is and take the hit, then rebuild from the ruins of 2015 with whoever survives the slaughter...
McCain:
"We are facing a disaster here, not only in Iraq but Syria. Extremist groups now control more territory than at any time in history."
"There are many options, but the options become fewer and fewer as the startling success of the ISIS continues. We need to act rather rapidly, but that has to be comprehensive strategy."
Graham:
"What I heard today scared the hell out of me. The briefing was chilling … Iraq is falling apart"
Hillary:
"There will be legal support for America staying in Afghanistan"
Boehner:
"I think what we should do is provide the equipment and technical assistance that the Iraqis are requesting … It's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year, and it's not like we haven't seen … these terrorists moving in and taking control. they're 100 miles from Baghdad, and where's the president? Taking a nap!"
I fear it would be difficult to become any sort of man by being Mother Theresa.
My betting position looks substantially better with a mortally wounded Clegg floundering his way to the GE2015 line.
It never occurred to us that equipping jihadists to wreck #Syria would have consequences for Iraq. Who would have thought?
Here are some more maps for AndyJS:
http://www.wnyc.org/story/iraq-falls-apart/
Congress is now getting in line behind strikes, but W.H. still refusing.
Jeff Zeleny @jeffzeleny 7m
Closed-door Iraq briefing ends in Senate. Joe Manchin says air strikes might be only way they can regroup.
The Govt jobs are 80% complete with at most 11 months left.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010
Those were the my friend...
http://forargyll.com/2014/06/scottish-conservatives-select-general-election-candidate/
"So where did ISIS get all their kit?"
From the FSA fighters they were beheading, from the Iraq army, and from Sunni states and donors who see them as a bullwark against the Shia?
5-1 looks a big price imo.
It's clear that at least an american bombing campaign is needed but how can he support it?
And if Baghdad falls the neocons will have a narrative to push back.
The best he can do is to say "I was right of not supporting the syrian rebels, look what happened, I will support american airstikes on ISIS but I will never support boots on the ground".
Buying oil futures is a little adventurous for me but if it wasn't....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOmUW5QyqQ
I assume it is Al Nusra ?
It would hardly be the first time Socrates. Have you seen Charlie Wilson's War? All along in these conflicts its been about trying to identify who are our real friends and who are our enemies.
It's impossible. Nobody there likes us. Except maybe Israel.
The best thing Obama can do now is repeal the law banning the US from exporting oil, so the price doesn't go through the ceiling.
Other examples are: Taliban, Libyan rebels, Latin American drug cartels, Latin American dictators and the Khmer Rouge.
Barry is "concerned" and "watching events in Iraq" closely.
He is "considering all options" and "hasn't ruled anything out yet."
Some people, Socrates for example, even believe he may act decisively...
...in due course.
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Ukip-s-election-hopeful/story-21210872-detail/story.html
Local election result:
UKIP 6,104
Lab 4,716
Con 2,963
LD 2,418
Ind 619
Green 433
TUSC 213
ISIS is operating further east, establishing their de facto caliphate between the Tigris and Euphrates.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/12/islamic_front_brigad.php
"Ahrar al Sham also was involved in the recent takeover of a large cache of weapons and munitions owned by the Free Syrian Army."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/14/assad-use-chemical-weapons-confirmed-us-officials-say/
"As the White House appeared poised to send military aid to Syrian rebels, new concerns arose that the weapons will inevitably fall into the hands of terrorist groups who count themselves among hundreds of factions that form the rag-tag Free Syrian Army."