The voting age in Iran used to be 15 but I think they increased it to 18 recently, maybe because the clerics suspected 15-17 year olds were more likely to vote for liberal candidates.
Speaking of the Middle East - why are so many shocked that the Iranians have gone for a moderate?
My Iranian friends are embarrassed by DinnerJacket et al - and IIRC Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 200yrs. They get a terrible press despite being a largely very cultured nation IME.
How one measures funding for various *terrorist/freedom fighting* organisations is of course another matter. Lots of US citizens were keen on the IRA.
Iran is an imperial nation. Your thoughts are not replicated by the Azeris, Kurds, Boluchis and Shia Arabs (c.f. Princes-Gate). Life ain't simple lass....
When she was a child, Mrs J lived in Tehran for a short period during the Iran-Iraq war. It was an interesting time to be there, and the rest of the family soon moved back to London, leaving her dad there. She has a fondness for the people, but not for the system or society (*).
Which is an interesting distinction: people on an individual or familial level can be perfectly pleasant and honourable, even when living in a system and society that is abhorrent. In other words, does a system and society lag behind the individuals that they comprise because of an inherent social conservatism?
(*) It should be said that she did not travel much for the obvious reasons, and would have mostly met people from a high social strata because of the reasons she was over there.
One bit of good news - EDL support seems to have tailed off post-Woolwich....Maybe those complaining Robinson got too much publicity are wrong. It clearly didn't help him, or them.
The fieldwork was pre-interview - and I doubt the Daily Politics has ever shifted an opinion poll...Normally a fan of Neil I thought he did a bit too much 'talking over' in that interview - 'enough rope' should have done the trick.....
I think Parliament should have the final say over a commitment to a major war. That's not going to change regardless of what Cameron does or doesn't do.
Why insist on trying to make a party political point out of this?
Cameron, as PM, should form his view but it's right that the Commons should have the final say.
Remember you said that Charles. Having a say is not the same as having a veto and the final say.
That last question, about whether Parliament could prevent such action, is the key, and the Prime Minister does not offer a copper-bottomed guarantee that a vote in Parliament would be binding.
At least it wasn't a cast-iron guarantee. That might have set off the alarm bells for his own backbenchers. They are still eventually going to realise that they or parliament don't have a veto on this yet and may never do. There is always the option of a no-confidence vote.
Ultimately Parliament always has a veto, it's simply a matter of whether it chooses to wield it or not.
Reminds me of Miliband's speech where he lambasted takeaways, gambling shops and maybe another sort of shop for dominating city centres.
It will no doubt surprise some Islington lefties that demand for fresh baked focaccia, antique furniture, boutique travel agents, arabica coffee and wood burning stoves is somewhat limited in parts of Britain....
1) Tories state exactly what EU renegotiation they want to achieve and that they will support leaving the EU in a 2017 referendum if they fail in any negotiations. This should help most UKIP flirters come back to the Tories.
2) Labour make a complete mess of their election campaign.
Not sure which is most likely, but both are possible.
2) Is fairly likely as little Ed really is far from impressive on the campaign trail even standing on a pallet. Problem for the tories is we already know that having Osbrowne master strategise a campaign is a very foolish move so it would end up a zero-sum game.
Don't forget though, that Mandelson ran a very good (if cynical) campaign in 2010, so a zero-sum game represents a significant relative improvement for the Tories
Just think about the process. They're going to want to be in the EU.
So? Not our (rUK) problem - we can split the country then as an independent country Scotland can apply to join any club it likes at any time it wants to. No need to drag on the divorce for years because the estranged partner wants to sign up to match.com but hasn't managed to do it yet.
rUK trades with Scotland, loads of Scots live in England, loads of English live in Scotland. There may be a bit of brinksmanship and grandstanding here and there, but nobody's going to be playing passive-aggressive games over this. Most of the relevant details will be win-win or lose-lose. Once the Scottish voters vote the politicians will sort out the details in a way that works for everyone. But there will be no urgent need to change anything particularly fast, and the EU doesn't move fast even when there is an urgent need to.
Post Referendum, in the situation where the Indi side win, I cannot envisage a period where they say, Oh, take your time, they will want (rightly) the quickest and most complete solution asap.
O/T Did anything ever happen with that project you were looking for help on? We've just kicked off another funding round.
Speaking of the Middle East - why are so many shocked that the Iranians have gone for a moderate?
My Iranian friends are embarrassed by DinnerJacket et al - and IIRC Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 200yrs. They get a terrible press despite being a largely very cultured nation IME.
How one measures funding for various *terrorist/freedom fighting* organisations is of course another matter. Lots of US citizens were keen on the IRA.
Does the 4,000 troops they have sent to support Assad count as an invasion? And what about Iraq? And their surrogates in Lebanon?
Iran got the Mullahs because of the Shah and they got the Shah because of us. But that does not mean that the current non-elected leadership of Iran is not a major problem.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
I really don't know which way to jump on this but I do think tories undermining Cameron's credibility are not helping.
Speaking of the Middle East - why are so many shocked that the Iranians have gone for a moderate?
My Iranian friends are embarrassed by DinnerJacket et al - and IIRC Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 200yrs. They get a terrible press despite being a largely very cultured nation IME.
How one measures funding for various *terrorist/freedom fighting* organisations is of course another matter. Lots of US citizens were keen on the IRA.
I really don't know which way to jump on this but I do think tories undermining Cameron's credibility are not helping.
I don't think Cameron needs any help undermining his own credibility - more thoughtful responses to Sir Peter Tapsell's 'Shia-Sunni Civil War' and Jack Straw's 'solution needs to involve Iran' questions in PMQs would have helped his standing.
''I really don't know which way to jump on this but I do think tories undermining Cameron's credibility are not helping. ''
Is the debate really about Cameron's credibility, arming rebels in Syria or something else??
I think its about Britain's role in the world and relationship with the world. Undoubtedly some voters are very unhappy about the interventionism of recent decades - in terms of lives lost, money spent, enemies created and prestige lost.
Interesting article in the NYT over the weekend about how there is 17% unemployment among Chinese university graduates, but only 4% among those educated to primary level only. The last thing the government there wants is millions of frustrated, articulate, well educated critics on its hands.
''I really don't know which way to jump on this but I do think tories undermining Cameron's credibility are not helping. ''
Is the debate really about Cameron's credibility, arming rebels in Syria or something else??
I think its about Britain's role in the world and relationship with the world. Undoubtedly some voters are very unhappy about the interventionism of recent decades - in terms of lives lost, money spent, enemies created and prestige lost.
I would agree with all of that and am strongly against us putting troops on the ground. But the context of the Cameron/Hollande initiative was to seek to force Assad to a negotiating table. At the moment he has no incentive because he is winning. This means that there has to be a threat that the balance of power might be changed again. That is what the UK and France were seeking to achieve with the EU sanctions being uplifted and, presumably, what Obama is trying to achieve as well.
If the international perception is that Cameron can't provide such arms and Obama doesn't really want to the opportunities for negotiations will be diminished. Cameron does have credibility on these issues following his decisive intervention in Libya. But tories playing party political games in the UK are not making his job any easier.
What I find a little odd is that it is the west that is making the running here. Why don't the Saudis simply provide all the arms that are needed?
The last thing the government there wants is millions of frustrated, articulate, well educated critics on its hands.
As someone once wisely observed, the French revolution happened not because of poor starving peasants, who regarded it as their lot, but because of poor starving lawyers, who did not.
Why don't the Saudis simply provide all the arms that are needed?
That is one of many questions we should be asking the Saudis.
Amongst the other questions we should be asking them is why they fund radical groups in Britain when they are supposed to be our allies.
They make a very poor friend in my view and their exalted position as oil provider of last resort may not last forever. The global energy game is changing.
Judith Moritz @JudithMoritz Breaking news: broadcaster Stuart Hall sentenced to 15 months in prison
Nick Britten @NickBritten Stuart hall ordered to pay £11,000 prosecution costs
Channel 4 News @Channel4News Stuart Hall sentenced to 15 months in prison for after he admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls aged as young as nine #c4 news
Interesting article in the NYT over the weekend about how there is 17% unemployment among Chinese university graduates, but only 4% among those educated to primary level only. The last thing the government there wants is millions of frustrated, articulate, well educated critics on its hands.
What's the betting TSE will use this as a headline on Nighthawks, with the subheading "China Crisis"?
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
''I really don't know which way to jump on this but I do think tories undermining Cameron's credibility are not helping. ''
Is the debate really about Cameron's credibility, arming rebels in Syria or something else??
I think its about Britain's role in the world and relationship with the world. Undoubtedly some voters are very unhappy about the interventionism of recent decades - in terms of lives lost, money spent, enemies created and prestige lost.
I would agree with all of that and am strongly against us putting troops on the ground. But the context of the Cameron/Hollande initiative was to seek to force Assad to a negotiating table. At the moment he has no incentive because he is winning. This means that there has to be a threat that the balance of power might be changed again. That is what the UK and France were seeking to achieve with the EU sanctions being uplifted and, presumably, what Obama is trying to achieve as well.
If the international perception is that Cameron can't provide such arms and Obama doesn't really want to the opportunities for negotiations will be diminished. Cameron does have credibility on these issues following his decisive intervention in Libya. But tories playing party political games in the UK are not making his job any easier.
What I find a little odd is that it is the west that is making the running here. Why don't the Saudis simply provide all the arms that are needed?
It's US policy with a UK front to camouflage it. They don't want the Saudis to front it for the same but opposite reason i.e. if the Saudis did it it would be anti-camouflage.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
To your humble blogger, this is simply the next iteration of the unspoken, brutally realpolitik policy towards Syria that's been going on for the past two years. To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.
This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.
Cameron is wrong on Syria... we should just keep out of it.
I would go so far to say that the consequence of being a liberal human-rights focused society is that we're increasingly incapable of getting our hands dirty. We're being hamstrung by our own distaste for conflict..and that were so worried about the consquences of our own action and having to be in the position to commit to questionable actions that we cannot help anymore.
That could ultimately actually be a bad thing for the world, and a bad thing for us, but it's whats happening.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind on WATO arguing that the 95,000 Syrian opposition fighters unlikely to give their weapons to the 5,000 AQ affiliates, given the latter are already well armed, the former not.
This will be an interesting test for Cameron - if, as the analysis EiT has posted suggests, the west's interest lies in keeping Syria bleeding, weakening Iran, then we should supply arms. Has Cameron become as messianic as Blair, determined to "do the right thing" - or will he listen to Parliament?
Miss Vance, it's clearly absolutely unacceptable for MPs who are Scottish to be on the 'UK' side of any theoretical negotiations over separation. It'd be a great way to get an antagonistic rather than cordial separation.
Mr Dancer,
Just out of interest, would you ban an English man from being on the Independence side? 'Cos that would put Bromley, Kent born Mike Russell out.
Wendy Wood, who started up the forerunner of the SNP, the Scottish Patriots, was English.
Several of our national footballers and rugby players were only able to play for Scotland via having a Scottish Grandparent (and just for interest, one of our rugby players is Dutch and is in via the residency rule, while the captain of the Scottish Cricket team, though born in Scotland, is, I believe, of Pakistan decent).
To add extra irony, we now have a French SNP MSP.
For the record, the members of the Royal Archers, Royal Body Guard in Scotland have to be able to trace their Scottish ancestory back to the 1600's before they are invited to join. It will also help to have a lot of money in your sporran. However, due to their Royal connections, I doubt they would support Independence in any form.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Well said - orthodox civil war theory has it that it is optimal and historically has been the case that eventually one side will win and nation-building can commence.
Of course whether that's the kind of nation we would like is anyone's guess, especially in Syria.
O/T did anyone catch the BBC News today? Joanne Gosling has got a whole Gillian Anderson/The Fall white blouse thing going on.
In the late 2000's the town of Vélez-Málaga built a 4.7km tram system to connect it to the seaside resort of Torre del Mar. Between them, the two towns of a combined population of 90,000, although the seaside resort is very popular with tourists.
What could go wrong?
The tramway shut last year, and now the trams are being leased to Australia.
Miss Vance, it's clearly absolutely unacceptable for MPs who are Scottish to be on the 'UK' side of any theoretical negotiations over separation. It'd be a great way to get an antagonistic rather than cordial separation.
Mr Dancer,
Just out of interest, would you ban an English man from being on the Independence side? 'Cos that would put Bromley, Kent born Mike Russell out.
Wendy Wood, who started up the forerunner of the SNP, the Scottish Patriots, was English.
Several of our national footballers and rugby players were only able to play for Scotland via having a Scottish Grandparent (and just for interest, one of our rugby players is Dutch and is in via the residency rule, while the captain of the Scottish Cricket team, though born in Scotland, is, I believe, of Pakistan decent).
To add extra irony, we now have a French SNP MSP.
For the record, the members of the Royal Archers, Royal Body Guard in Scotland have to be able to trace their Scottish ancestory back to the 1600's before they are invited to join. It will also help to have a lot of money in your sporran. However, due to their Royal connections, I doubt they would support Independence in any form.
It reached farcical levels for the Scottish rugby league team once. The most Scottish person involved in a match vs New Zealand was the New Zealand coach.
Are Labour just hoping to pick up former Lib Dems by default? Or are the recent announcements on welfare and education (almost following the government but not quite!) actually designed to attract more of them??
Sir Malcolm Rifkind on WATO arguing that the 95,000 Syrian opposition fighters unlikely to give their weapons to the 5,000 AQ affiliates, given the latter are already well armed, the former not.
This will be an interesting test for Cameron - if, as the analysis EiT has posted suggests, the west's interest lies in keeping Syria bleeding, weakening Iran, then we should supply arms. Has Cameron become as messianic as Blair, determined to "do the right thing" - or will he listen to Parliament?
Doing the "right thing" is keeping Syria bleeding?
That's in line with my anecdotal evidence (Lincolnshire relatives and friends). So surely that can't be right? Tim will be along soon to explain why my brothers are lying to me.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind on WATO arguing that the 95,000 Syrian opposition fighters unlikely to give their weapons to the 5,000 AQ affiliates, given the latter are already well armed, the former not.
This will be an interesting test for Cameron - if, as the analysis EiT has posted suggests, the west's interest lies in keeping Syria bleeding, weakening Iran, then we should supply arms. Has Cameron become as messianic as Blair, determined to "do the right thing" - or will he listen to Parliament?
Doing the "right thing" is keeping Syria bleeding?
There is no 'right thing' in this situation. When you're picking between two sides in a civil war, especially with backing from foreign influences, you're just pouring oil on fire.
I cannot see how a political/diplomatic solution is possible at the moment. I'd rather keep our hands clean than to be pulled into a gutter.
We kicked off Phase 3 of our grant giving programme today. £100,000 to be given away (first of three tranches this year).
From the application pack:
We are looking to fund charities and organisations where either: - The grant will generate a result which is proportionately much greater than just the small sum of money received, or - The grant will allow the organisation to overcome a temporary hurdle, setting it on track to succeed in what it aims to do.
We will be seeking to make grants really make a difference to the organisations we support – grants that enable charities to take a step forward in their development and do something they were not able to do before. A few such examples include: extending the reach of an existing offering, creating a new strand of work that strengthens sustainability, developing new partnerships, or simply becoming more organised within their own operations. These examples are by no means exhaustive.
If anyone is interested, they can get more info from info@bulldogtrust.org (please mark the subject line GBT/BT Funding Initiative)
Sir Malcolm Rifkind on WATO arguing that the 95,000 Syrian opposition fighters unlikely to give their weapons to the 5,000 AQ affiliates, given the latter are already well armed, the former not.
This will be an interesting test for Cameron - if, as the analysis EiT has posted suggests, the west's interest lies in keeping Syria bleeding, weakening Iran, then we should supply arms. Has Cameron become as messianic as Blair, determined to "do the right thing" - or will he listen to Parliament?
Doing the "right thing" is keeping Syria bleeding?
Or protecting South Vietnam from the aggression of the North?
Wilson (to LBJ's fury) kept us out of that one.....Cameron should keep us out of this....
My 2p worth on Syria.. I think we should leave the Syrians to it and concentrate on our own problems.
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
Dan Hodges bromance for Miliband is fading fast: "When's Ed Miliband going to realise he can't have one manifesto for the country and another for the Labour Party."
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 6m Michael Gove: ‘Labour’s policy on free schools is so tortured they should send in the UN to end the suffering'
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 17m Labour appears to have a welfare cap that isn't a cap, free schools that aren't free schools and Tory spending limits that aren't limits.
My 2p worth on Syria.. I think we should leave the Syrians to it and concentrate on our own problems.
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
I agree.. blindly giving guns to people is not a good idea..especially if you don't want those guns and weapons to end up in places you don't want them.
If possible, there should be a safe zone created for civilians, if that is possible.. but even that is fraught with danger.
Barosso saying they have go-ahead to negotiate US-EU trade deal. Suspect the devil is in the detail...., eh Francois?
edit - Journo says 'France has secured 'cultural diversity exception' - so will US also seek exceptions' - Barosso says it was never on the table as 'Cultural Diversity' already protected by existing treaties.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
My 2p worth on Syria.. I think we should leave the Syrians to it and concentrate on our own problems.
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
I agree.. blindly giving guns to people is not a good idea..especially if you don't want those guns and weapons to end up in places you don't want them.
If possible, there should be a safe zone created for civilians, if that is possible.. but even that is fraught with danger.
I'm not sure the massive international black market in guns will be particularly dented by western guns going to Syria. Guns don't particularly worry me: they're apparentlly easy to get hold of on the market for enough coins. What worries me is more high-tech weaponry, for instance missiles and bombs.
Something occurs to me: could it not be possible to manufacture guns that have a built-in obsolescence, for instance barrels that can only cope with (say) 500 firings before having to be changed? They would have to either ask us for more barrels or try to manufacture their own.
Or perhaps sealed magazines. But that probably would not be practical on the battlefield, and ingenious people could probably get around it.
My 2p worth on Syria.. I think we should leave the Syrians to it and concentrate on our own problems.
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
I agree.. blindly giving guns to people is not a good idea..especially if you don't want those guns and weapons to end up in places you don't want them.
If possible, there should be a safe zone created for civilians, if that is possible.. but even that is fraught with danger.
I'm not sure the massive international black market in guns will be particularly dented by western guns going to Syria. Guns don't particularly worry me: they're apparentlly easy to get hold of on the market for enough coins. What worries me is more high-tech weaponry, for instance missiles and bombs.
Something occurs to me: could it not be possible to manufacture guns that have a built-in obsolescence, for instance barrels that can only cope with (say) 500 firings before having to be changed? They would have to either ask us for more barrels or try to manufacture their own.
Or perhaps sealed magazines. But that probably would not be practical on the battlefield, and ingenious people could probably get around it.
You answer your own question. Small arms are very very plentiful. They can be bought or built. "Arming the rebels" in my mind means some pretty game-changing battlefield weapons (eg. air, heavy weapons). Giving them an extra AK each isn't going to make much difference.
@DavidL: "the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them"
The extremists and radicalised hate the West already, for being the West, regardless of what we do.
There are probably no good outcomes for Syria, certainly in the short-term. There are no good outcomes for us, if we become involved, and I have yet to hear any cogent argument for why it is in Britain's national interest for us to be come involved.
Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
Frankly the notion of Iran controlling any other state is perhaps over estimating their abilities a tad. Sanctions means they are sitting on a pretty big reservoir of discontent at home.
My 2p worth on Syria.. I think we should leave the Syrians to it and concentrate on our own problems.
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
I agree.. blindly giving guns to people is not a good idea..especially if you don't want those guns and weapons to end up in places you don't want them.
If possible, there should be a safe zone created for civilians, if that is possible.. but even that is fraught with danger.
I'm not sure the massive international black market in guns will be particularly dented by western guns going to Syria. Guns don't particularly worry me: they're apparentlly easy to get hold of on the market for enough coins. What worries me is more high-tech weaponry, for instance missiles and bombs.
Something occurs to me: could it not be possible to manufacture guns that have a built-in obsolescence, for instance barrels that can only cope with (say) 500 firings before having to be changed? They would have to either ask us for more barrels or try to manufacture their own.
Or perhaps sealed magazines. But that probably would not be practical on the battlefield, and ingenious people could probably get around it.
You answer your own question. Small arms are very very plentiful. They can be bought or built. "Arming the rebels" in my mind means some pretty game-changing battlefield weapons (eg. air, heavy weapons). Giving them an extra AK each isn't going to make much difference.
It is essentially shorthand for intervention.
If we want to police the world we should send in our own troops. That is what they are for.
If the problem isn't important enough for us to do that, then we should mind our own business.
Who says the people whose countries we keep interfering in want to be like Westerners? My money would say they probably don't
I disagree. Looking at it in a hard-headed realpolitik it would be quite advantageous for us to stand by and let Russia and Iran get involved in
1. a complete bloodbath televised by the world's media. 2. a humiliating defeat where the cream of their military are defeated by a couple of hundred blokes in carts with pitchforks, to be followed by an expensive, humbling withdrawal.
The morality of the situation might dictate we do otherwise, but morality and foreign policy aren't always the same thing.
My 2p worth on Syria.. I think we should leave the Syrians to it and concentrate on our own problems.
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
I agree.. blindly giving guns to people is not a good idea..especially if you don't want those guns and weapons to end up in places you don't want them.
If possible, there should be a safe zone created for civilians, if that is possible.. but even that is fraught with danger.
I'm not sure the massive international black market in guns will be particularly dented by western guns going to Syria. Guns don't particularly worry me: they're apparentlly easy to get hold of on the market for enough coins. What worries me is more high-tech weaponry, for instance missiles and bombs.
Something occurs to me: could it not be possible to manufacture guns that have a built-in obsolescence, for instance barrels that can only cope with (say) 500 firings before having to be changed? They would have to either ask us for more barrels or try to manufacture their own.
Or perhaps sealed magazines. But that probably would not be practical on the battlefield, and ingenious people could probably get around it.
You answer your own question. Small arms are very very plentiful. They can be bought or built. "Arming the rebels" in my mind means some pretty game-changing battlefield weapons (eg. air, heavy weapons). Giving them an extra AK each isn't going to make much difference.
It is essentially shorthand for intervention.
If we want to police the world we should send in our own troops. That is what they are for.
If the problem isn't important enough for us to do that, then we should mind our own business.
Who says the people whose countries we keep interfering in want to be like Westerners? My money would say they probably don't
I don't disagree but that wasn't the point I was making. Rightly or wrongly the narrative is "arming the rebels". To make any sense this would mean substantially more than sending them some more AK47s and would mean intervention with likely air power and other assets.
As to whether it's important enough to send our own troops then there are many more options than just bussing over the green army.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
My 2p worth on Syria.. I think we should leave the Syrians to it and concentrate on our own problems.
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
I agree.. blindly giving guns to people is not a good idea..especially if you don't want those guns and weapons to end up in places you don't want them.
If possible, there should be a safe zone created for civilians, if that is possible.. but even that is fraught with danger.
I'm not sure the massive international black market in guns will be particularly dented by western guns going to Syria. Guns don't particularly worry me: they're apparentlly easy to get hold of on the market for enough coins. What worries me is more high-tech weaponry, for instance missiles and bombs.
Something occurs to me: could it not be possible to manufacture guns that have a built-in obsolescence, for instance barrels that can only cope with (say) 500 firings before having to be changed? They would have to either ask us for more barrels or try to manufacture their own.
Or perhaps sealed magazines. But that probably would not be practical on the battlefield, and ingenious people could probably get around it.
You answer your own question. Small arms are very very plentiful. They can be bought or built. "Arming the rebels" in my mind means some pretty game-changing battlefield weapons (eg. air, heavy weapons). Giving them an extra AK each isn't going to make much difference.
It is essentially shorthand for intervention.
If we want to police the world we should send in our own troops. That is what they are for.
If the problem isn't important enough for us to do that, then we should mind our own business.
Who says the people whose countries we keep interfering in want to be like Westerners? My money would say they probably don't
I don't disagree but that wasn't the point I was making. Rightly or wrongly the narrative is "arming the rebels". To make any sense this would mean substantially more than sending them some more AK47s and would mean intervention with likely air power and other assets.
As to whether it's important enough to send our own troops then there are many more options than just bussing over the green army.
Agree that it would mean more than just sending them guns of the type they probably already have... that's why we shouldn't do it!
Don't know enough about it to get too in depth. I've always been instinctively anti war of any kind unless it is explicit self defence of our citizens
I've read the Fitch piece, and it's a very interesting piece of work. It essentially argues that China's private sector debt service cost - as a percentage of GDP - has reached a Minsky moment. I think the analyst estimated that over a third of Chinese GDP was being used to either pay interest or principle on debt. In the past, when economies have reached these levels, they tend to suffer major crises.
That said, it's worth noting that private sector China's debt is very short-term, and therefore the maturity element can be largely managed by roll-overs. The interest portion may be significantly more modest. So the Minsky moment call may be somewhat premature. That said, either way, it suggests China's room to 'pump prime' the economy by easing credit conditions is limited.
I've read the Fitch piece, and it's a very interesting piece of work. It essentially argues that China's private sector debt service cost - as a percentage of GDP - has reached a Minsky moment. I think the analyst estimated that over a third of Chinese GDP was being used to either pay interest or principle on debt. In the past, when economies have reached these levels, they tend to suffer major crises.
That said, it's worth noting that private sector China's debt is very short-term, and therefore the maturity element can be largely managed by roll-overs. The interest portion may be significantly more modest. So the Minsky moment call may be somewhat premature. That said, either way, it suggests China's room to 'pump prime' the economy by easing credit conditions is limited.
The issue in China is credit quality, though. The state-influenced banks have been pumping money in all sorts of directions to rather dubious projects. If they were to properly go through their under-performing loan book it wouldn't be a pretty process.
So far as Syria is concerned, we need to start from the basics.
1) Is this our problem?
Answer: no, not really. It's over 2,000 miles from Damascus to London as the crow flies. Syria is not a major trading partner and we have no particular ties with it.
So we should only get involved if the moral case for involvement is compelling and we can make a critical difference.
2) Is the moral case for involvement compelling?
Neither side is exactly stuffed full of good guys. If there is a moral case for involvement, it doesn't revolve around the merits of the participants.
3) The people on the ground are suffering badly. Is there anything we can do to alleviate their suffering?
This seems to me where we should be focussing our attention. But so far it seems that we aren't. Bombing for peace is not a strategy with a long track record of success.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
So far as Syria is concerned, we need to start from the basics.
1) Is this our problem?
Answer: no, not really. It's over 2,000 miles from Damascus to London as the crow flies. Syria is not a major trading partner and we have no particular ties with it.
So we should only get involved if the moral case for involvement is compelling and we can make a critical difference.
2) Is the moral case for involvement compelling?
Neither side is exactly stuffed full of good guys. If there is a moral case for involvement, it doesn't revolve around the merits of the participants.
3) The people on the ground are suffering badly. Is there anything we can do to alleviate their suffering?
This seems to me where we should be focussing our attention. But so far it seems that we aren't. Bombing for peace is not a strategy with a long track record of success.
Isn't there a fourth question?
4) If we do (or do not) get involved, what are the risks of a regime coming to power that is dangerously antithetical to us? What happens if the winning side turns the country into another Iran?
So far as Syria is concerned, we need to start from the basics.
1) Is this our problem?
Answer: no, not really. It's over 2,000 miles from Damascus to London as the crow flies. Syria is not a major trading partner and we have no particular ties with it.
So we should only get involved if the moral case for involvement is compelling and we can make a critical difference.
2) Is the moral case for involvement compelling?
Neither side is exactly stuffed full of good guys. If there is a moral case for involvement, it doesn't revolve around the merits of the participants.
3) The people on the ground are suffering badly. Is there anything we can do to alleviate their suffering?
This seems to me where we should be focussing our attention. But so far it seems that we aren't. Bombing for peace is not a strategy with a long track record of success.
You forget realpolitik. Syria was on the frontline of the cold war conflict with Israel-Syria the US-USSR proxies.
Russia is maintaining that connection, fearing a loss of influence in the M-E and so the US feels bound to respond also.
So far as Syria is concerned, we need to start from the basics.
1) Is this our problem?
Answer: no, not really. It's over 2,000 miles from Damascus to London as the crow flies. Syria is not a major trading partner and we have no particular ties with it.
So we should only get involved if the moral case for involvement is compelling and we can make a critical difference.
2) Is the moral case for involvement compelling?
Neither side is exactly stuffed full of good guys. If there is a moral case for involvement, it doesn't revolve around the merits of the participants.
3) The people on the ground are suffering badly. Is there anything we can do to alleviate their suffering?
This seems to me where we should be focussing our attention. But so far it seems that we aren't. Bombing for peace is not a strategy with a long track record of success.
Isn't there a fourth question?
4) If we do (or do not) get involved, what are the risks of a regime coming to power that is dangerously antithetical to us? What happens if the winning side turns the country into another Iran?
Doesn't the fact that one of the sides is already in power and isn't another Iran suggest we should stay out rather than arm the "rebels"?
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
This is a world of realpolitik. If Assad wins, Syria will be part of the anti-Western camp: pro Russia and pro-Iran - confirmed and probably more strongly committed to its pre-existing path. So we lose. Arming the rebels may help counter that - and give us a friend or at least a more neutral player in a strategic region.
So the trade off is (1) cost of intervention vs (2) benefit of a non-enemy in the Middle East
The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict because referring to them as "tribes" (which is probably accurate) is associated with primivitism in the UK. No point in insulting people for the sake of it. It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not (although it is important when you consider execution of the policy).
The biggest reason to get involved is because Obama said 'using chemical weapons is a red line'. He's now admitted chemical weapons have been used. So he needs to intervene, otherwise chemical weapons will be used with impunity in future.
Just reading up about Edward III (considering getting a biography of him at some point) on Wikipedia and came across this gem:
"In Mel Gibsons 1995 film Braveheart William Wallace is implied to be the real father of Edward III, despite Wallace's death many years before Edward's birth.[123]"
"In Mel Gibsons 1995 film Braveheart William Wallace is implied to be the real father of Edward III, despite Wallace's death many years before Edward's birth.[123]"
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
... The biggest reason to get involved is because Obama said 'using chemical weapons is a red line'. He's now admitted chemical weapons have been used. So he needs to intervene, otherwise chemical weapons will be used with impunity in future.
Isn't there a RAF base only a couple of hundred miles away at Akrotiri?
Given how much of a big deal the use of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons is supposed to be I'm surprised there hasn't already been an air strike on some Syrian bases.
I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, but it would be consistent with what has been said.
"In Mel Gibsons 1995 film Braveheart William Wallace is implied to be the real father of Edward III, despite Wallace's death many years before Edward's birth.[123]"
Frozen embryo.
First time I've laughed with JamesKelly. Must be something in the air.
If Assad wins, Syria will be part of the anti-Western camp: pro Russia and pro-Iran - confirmed and probably more strongly committed to its pre-existing path. So we lose.
Are this lot really credible as a united, coherent, consistent and credible threat to the West? The answer for me is a resounding no.
Russia loathes everybody, and that includes many Russians. Iran loathes Russia and the west, the Syrians loathe each other and probably loathe the non-muslim Russians.
I doubt whether together they could build a brewery, let alone arrange a p8ss up in one.
These dummies are being lined up by grandstanding politicians as bogeymen.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
... The biggest reason to get involved is because Obama said 'using chemical weapons is a red line'. He's now admitted chemical weapons have been used. So he needs to intervene, otherwise chemical weapons will be used with impunity in future.
Isn't there a RAF base only a couple of hundred miles away at Akrotiri?
Given how much of a big deal the use of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons is supposed to be I'm surprised there hasn't already been an air strike on some Syrian bases.
I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, but it would be consistent with what has been said.
@JosiasJessop@TOPPING These are part of question 1. So far as Britain is concerned, so what?
I'm not sure that is part of the first question, which is about the current situation. Question 4 is essentially which will be better for us in the long term?
As far as Britain is concerned, the Iranian revolution led to a destabilisation of the Middle East, and (from our perspective) a worse, more restrictive lifestyle for many of the population. But from a non-interventionist perspective that is none of our business.
However Iran after the revolution has caused Britain many problems, from the embassy siege to sponsoring terrorism. (1) The regime under the Shah was poor; sadly the revolution has not helped many in the country, and both are far away from what we would like to see: a shining, stable democracy.
Syria under Assad also caused us problems wrt security (2); the question is which side will be better for us: a Syria where the revolutionaries win, or one where Assad is still in charge?
We need to be looking not just at the situation today, but what the situation may be in the future. And we behind our keyboards have no idea: that decision will be made by contacts with the various sides and then a judgement call I would not like to make.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict......It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not ......
Because getting involved in the oldest and longest running religious civil war...now into its 14th Century....might seem a touch 'brave'?
Note the 'controlled by Kurdish forces' area on the second map, and the countries they back onto. Also note the Kurdish desire for a homeland of their own (Kurdistan), and the reasons why Turkey might be very wary of the Kurdish areas of Syria gaining any form of autonomy.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict......It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not ......
Because getting involved in the oldest and longest running religious civil war...now into its 14th Century....might seem a touch 'brave'?
You forget the Orthodox / Catholic squabble. Or how about the Jews and the Christians?
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict......It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not ......
Because getting involved in the oldest and longest running religious civil war...now into its 14th Century....might seem a touch 'brave'?
You forget the Orthodox / Catholic squabble. Or how about the Jews and the Christians?
How many Orthodox Christians did the Catholics kill today, and how is the Christian armed insurrection against the state of Israel going?
@JosiasJessop: "However Iran after the revolution has caused Britain many problems, from the embassy siege to sponsoring terrorism."
Indeed. Will Syria under Assad cause us as many problems as as Syria under the sorts of people who kill children because of a comment about Mohammed, as Putin said yesterday.
The sorts of people who do that are, IMO, precisely the sorts of people who are more likely to sponsor terrorism against the West or inspire those here to commit similar acts.There is no good reason why we should arm the sorts of people who are our ideological enemies. The Saudis are already arming them and only a fool would think that they do not intend - if the rebels are successful - to spread their poisonous Wahabi-inspired sect of Islam to this part of the world, with all the consequences we've already seen elsewhere, for moderates, Christians and others in Syria. To be part of this is to shoot ourselves in the foot.
We may not intend to arm such people but sending arms to a country in the middle of a civil war will result in such people getting the weapons.
BTW the embassy siege - if I remember rightly - was caused by opponents of the Iranian regime not the regime itself. Our help got us no credit whatsoever with the Iranian regime. I don't expect any help we give to the rebels to get us any credit whatsoever either.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
It seems to me that most Syrians probably just want the war to end - giving just enough aid to the rebels to result in a stalemate seems the worst of all possible options. If we're sure the rebels are the good guys (in terms of our absolute values and what Syrians want) then there's a case for helping them massively with air power etc as in Libya. If we're not sure, then we should stay away, and if one side wins swiftly, maybe that's better than interminable war.
Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them. He said he had met these moderates many times; perhaps it is a relative term.
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
"Hague's argument this morning was essentially that unless we do something all the moderates that are on the rebel side will be dead leaving the extremist and the radicalised who will hate the west for not helping them."
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
Russia and Iran have already grabbed the role of Assad's friends.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Getting no credit for not arming people is only a logical reason for arming them if gaining credit is the only consideration.
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
This is a world of realpolitik. If Assad wins, Syria will be part of the anti-Western camp: pro Russia and pro-Iran - confirmed and probably more strongly committed to its pre-existing path. So we lose. Arming the rebels may help counter that - and give us a friend or at least a more neutral player in a strategic region.
So the trade off is (1) cost of intervention vs (2) benefit of a non-enemy in the Middle East
The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict because referring to them as "tribes" (which is probably accurate) is associated with primivitism in the UK. No point in insulting people for the sake of it. It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not (although it is important when you consider execution of the policy).
The biggest reason to get involved is because Obama said 'using chemical weapons is a red line'. He's now admitted chemical weapons have been used. So he needs to intervene, otherwise chemical weapons will be used with impunity in future.
"This is a world of realpolitik."
The government aren't arguing realpolitik. They're making up fake moral reasons to get the public to support arming the sort of people most likely to have have cheered Drummer Rigby's death.
"If Assad wins, Syria will be part of the anti-Western camp"
Assad has been on the Russian side for decades. Status quo. Things staying the same isn't a loss.
"Arming the rebels may help counter that - and give us a friend or at least a more neutral player in a strategic region."
Right...
The only bit of realpolitik that makes any sense is the bit about prolonging the civil war to get one side's extremists to kill the other side's extremists. I think all the evidence since 9/11 is whoever wins neither side is going to be a friend.
"The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict because referring to them as "tribes" (which is probably accurate) is associated with primivitism in the UK."
That's not the reason they're trying to pretend it's evil dictator vs everybody else and it's not accurate either. All the different groups are sub-divided into tribes. The tribes aren't their primary identity like in Libya. The Alawites have tribes. The Druze have tribes. The Sunnis have tribes etc. Tribes are like their version of welfare state.
"It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not (although it is important when you consider execution of the policy)."
It's absolutely relevant. If it's everyone piling on the wicked dictator then the chance of a clean resolution is much higher than if it's an Iraq-style ethno-sectarian situation.
"The biggest reason to get involved is because Obama said 'using chemical weapons is a red line'."
The UN said the rebels used them first so that's probably bogus as well.
Looking at the local election results Ed Miliband's appeal seems to be slightly lacking in places like cathedral cities / market towns in the Midlands and seaside resorts in East Anglia and Kent.
They could make the difference between a majority and being the largest party in a hung parliament.
@JosiasJessop: "However Iran after the revolution has caused Britain many problems, from the embassy siege to sponsoring terrorism."
Indeed. Will Syria under Assad cause us as many problems as as Syria under the sorts of people who kill children because of a comment about Mohammed, as Putin said yesterday.
The sorts of people who do that are, IMO, precisely the sorts of people who are more likely to sponsor terrorism against the West or inspire those here to commit similar acts.There is no good reason why we should arm the sorts of people who are our ideological enemies. The Saudis are already arming them and only a fool would think that they do not intend - if the rebels are successful - to spread their poisonous Wahabi-inspired sect of Islam to this part of the world, with all the consequences we've already seen elsewhere, for moderates, Christians and others in Syria. To be part of this is to shoot ourselves in the foot.
We may not intend to arm such people but sending arms to a country in the middle of a civil war will result in such people getting the weapons.
BTW the embassy siege - if I remember rightly - was caused by opponents of the Iranian regime not the regime itself. Our help got us no credit whatsoever with the Iranian regime. I don't expect any help we give to the rebels to get us any credit whatsoever either.
That sort of matches my current views on this mess. If we were going to intervene, then it should have been a year ago, nearer the start of the revolution and before other groups got heavily involved.
Obama's farcical 'red line' is drawn in blood. He has backed himself into a corner, and he needs to act now everyone knows chemical weapons have been used. Failure to do so makes any threats against their use by others hollow words.
But it is now too late to act.
Expect more chemical weapon use by nasty regimes in the future.
This is a new version of the Labour targets with the 2013 local election results superimposed, although I've only just started working out the results. Of course a lot of areas didn't have any elections this year so they will remain grey:
Note the 'controlled by Kurdish forces' area on the second map, and the countries they back onto. Also note the Kurdish desire for a homeland of their own (Kurdistan), and the reasons why Turkey might be very wary of the Kurdish areas of Syria gaining any form of autonomy.
Yeah, one of the sites i was looking for maps from talks about a three-way partition Shias west, Sunnis east, Kurds north.
@JosiasJessop: "However Iran after the revolution has caused Britain many problems, from the embassy siege to sponsoring terrorism."
Indeed. Will Syria under Assad cause us as many problems as as Syria under the sorts of people who kill children because of a comment about Mohammed, as Putin said yesterday.
The sorts of people who do that are, IMO, precisely the sorts of people who are more likely to sponsor terrorism against the West or inspire those here to commit similar acts.There is no good reason why we should arm the sorts of people who are our ideological enemies. The Saudis are already arming them and only a fool would think that they do not intend - if the rebels are successful - to spread their poisonous Wahabi-inspired sect of Islam to this part of the world, with all the consequences we've already seen elsewhere, for moderates, Christians and others in Syria. To be part of this is to shoot ourselves in the foot.
We may not intend to arm such people but sending arms to a country in the middle of a civil war will result in such people getting the weapons.
BTW the embassy siege - if I remember rightly - was caused by opponents of the Iranian regime not the regime itself. Our help got us no credit whatsoever with the Iranian regime. I don't expect any help we give to the rebels to get us any credit whatsoever either.
That sort of matches my current views on this mess. If we were going to intervene, then it should have been a year ago, nearer the start of the revolution and before other groups got heavily involved.
Obama's farcical 'red line' is drawn in blood. He has backed himself into a corner, and he needs to act now everyone knows chemical weapons have been used. Failure to do so makes any threats against their use by others hollow words.
But it is now too late to act.
Expect more chemical weapon use by nasty regimes in the future.
Just because we should have intervened some time ago (arguable) doesn't make intervention right now.
Intervening just to save Obama's face is the worst of all possible reasons. It will be too little, won't succeed and won't lessen the threat of other tyrants using chemical weapons. I don't think that one form of brutal killing is so much worse than another, frankly.
The real issue is whether the regime in question is a threat to us and whether any replacement is likely to be better.
See Afghanistan: we thought it made sense to weaken the Soviets there. But in doing so, we overlooked who were arming and that they were also being armed by the Saudis; we ignored what the Saudis actually believe (instead falling for the guff about their being an ally - which is all b*lls really) and the ideology they were spreading and ended up with a country in charge of a regime far more hostile to us. And we're still paying the price.
The results for constituencies in Lancashire like Morecambe, Lancaster and South Ribble will be interesting. I think the Tories probably held South Ribble (just by glancing at the figures).
Comments
Maybe those complaining Robinson got too much publicity are wrong. It clearly didn't help him, or them.
Which is an interesting distinction: people on an individual or familial level can be perfectly pleasant and honourable, even when living in a system and society that is abhorrent. In other words, does a system and society lag behind the individuals that they comprise because of an inherent social conservatism?
(*) It should be said that she did not travel much for the obvious reasons, and would have mostly met people from a high social strata because of the reasons she was over there.
Reminds me of Miliband's speech where he lambasted takeaways, gambling shops and maybe another sort of shop for dominating city centres.
I hope China's boom is not built on sand
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10123507/Fitch-says-China-credit-bubble-unprecedented-in-modern-world-history.html
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-outlines-responsible-journalism-defence-against-andrew-mitchells-£150k-plebgate-libel-action
Cameron, as PM, should form his view but it's right that the Commons should have the final say.
Remember you said that Charles.
Having a say is not the same as having a veto and the final say. At least it wasn't a cast-iron guarantee. That might have set off the alarm bells for his own backbenchers. They are still eventually going to realise that they or parliament don't have a veto on this yet and may never do.
There is always the option of a no-confidence vote.
Ultimately Parliament always has a veto, it's simply a matter of whether it chooses to wield it or not.
It will no doubt surprise some Islington lefties that demand for fresh baked focaccia, antique furniture, boutique travel agents, arabica coffee and wood burning stoves is somewhat limited in parts of Britain....
Iran got the Mullahs because of the Shah and they got the Shah because of us. But that does not mean that the current non-elected leadership of Iran is not a major problem.
The truth is that without a credible threat of intervention (to the extent of providing arms at least) on the side of the rebels they are going to lose to the better equipped and better supported troops backing Assad. We either accept that we can't do anything about this and let the massacre continue or we seek to redress the balance to some extent.
I really don't know which way to jump on this but I do think tories undermining Cameron's credibility are not helping.
But no - we got:
'Something Must Be Done!'
'This is Something.'
'We must do it'.
Is the debate really about Cameron's credibility, arming rebels in Syria or something else??
I think its about Britain's role in the world and relationship with the world. Undoubtedly some voters are very unhappy about the interventionism of recent decades - in terms of lives lost, money spent, enemies created and prestige lost.
The Qataris & Saudis are playing a very dangerous game....
http://hopisen.com/?p=5629
If the international perception is that Cameron can't provide such arms and Obama doesn't really want to the opportunities for negotiations will be diminished. Cameron does have credibility on these issues following his decisive intervention in Libya. But tories playing party political games in the UK are not making his job any easier.
What I find a little odd is that it is the west that is making the running here. Why don't the Saudis simply provide all the arms that are needed?
That is one of many questions we should be asking the Saudis.
Amongst the other questions we should be asking them is why they fund radical groups in Britain when they are supposed to be our allies.
They make a very poor friend in my view and their exalted position as oil provider of last resort may not last forever. The global energy game is changing.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BM9a9Z8CcAE5E_c.png:large
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ
What are the political loyalties of #EDL supporters? Not what you might think (full slides bit.ly/13ThY7v) pic.twitter.com/dS44Y1Geww http://www.academia.edu/3716915/Terrorism_and_Political_Violence_Conference_June_2013
Breaking news: broadcaster Stuart Hall sentenced to 15 months in prison
Nick Britten @NickBritten
Stuart hall ordered to pay £11,000 prosecution costs
Channel 4 News @Channel4News
Stuart Hall sentenced to 15 months in prison for after he admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls aged as young as nine #c4 news
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/14/why_obama_is_arming_syrias_rebels_its_the_realism_stupid
This is interesting given the policy of the government in Wales, where labour holds sway, is anti academy and anti free school.
I would go so far to say that the consequence of being a liberal human-rights focused society is that we're increasingly incapable of getting our hands dirty. We're being hamstrung by our own distaste for conflict..and that were so worried about the consquences of our own action and having to be in the position to commit to questionable actions that we cannot help anymore.
That could ultimately actually be a bad thing for the world, and a bad thing for us, but it's whats happening.
This will be an interesting test for Cameron - if, as the analysis EiT has posted suggests, the west's interest lies in keeping Syria bleeding, weakening Iran, then we should supply arms. Has Cameron become as messianic as Blair, determined to "do the right thing" - or will he listen to Parliament?
DailySunday Politics @daily_politics 18m
Watch the full interview of @EDLTrobinson on @afneil from #bbcsp on this link: http://bbc.in/12QnTPg
Just out of interest, would you ban an English man from being on the Independence side? 'Cos that would put Bromley, Kent born Mike Russell out.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Russell_(politician)
So who is Scottish enough to represent the Scots?
Wendy Wood, who started up the forerunner of the SNP, the Scottish Patriots, was English.
Several of our national footballers and rugby players were only able to play for Scotland via having a Scottish Grandparent (and just for interest, one of our rugby players is Dutch and is in via the residency rule, while the captain of the Scottish Cricket team, though born in Scotland, is, I believe, of Pakistan decent).
To add extra irony, we now have a French SNP MSP.
For the record, the members of the Royal Archers, Royal Body Guard in Scotland have to be able to trace their Scottish ancestory back to the 1600's before they are invited to join. It will also help to have a lot of money in your sporran. However, due to their Royal connections, I doubt they would support Independence in any form.
Of course whether that's the kind of nation we would like is anyone's guess, especially in Syria.
O/T did anyone catch the BBC News today? Joanne Gosling has got a whole Gillian Anderson/The Fall white blouse thing going on.
http://www.ukip.org/index.php/newsroom/news/677-why-ukip-has-consistently-opposed-british-involvement-in-syria
In the late 2000's the town of Vélez-Málaga built a 4.7km tram system to connect it to the seaside resort of Torre del Mar. Between them, the two towns of a combined population of 90,000, although the seaside resort is very popular with tourists.
What could go wrong?
The tramway shut last year, and now the trams are being leased to Australia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22932518
An interesting picture of one of the crashes at the bottom of this page: http://www.subways.net/spain/malaga.html
It makes the hilariously-mishandled Edinburgh tram project look sane.
Re Labour switchers to UKIP.
That's in line with my anecdotal evidence (Lincolnshire relatives and friends). So surely that can't be right? Tim will be along soon to explain why my brothers are lying to me.
I cannot see how a political/diplomatic solution is possible at the moment. I'd rather keep our hands clean than to be pulled into a gutter.
We kicked off Phase 3 of our grant giving programme today. £100,000 to be given away (first of three tranches this year).
From the application pack:
We are looking to fund charities and organisations where either:
- The grant will generate a result which is proportionately much greater than just the small sum of money received, or
- The grant will allow the organisation to overcome a temporary hurdle, setting it on track to succeed in what it aims to do.
We will be seeking to make grants really make a difference to the organisations we support – grants that enable charities to take a step forward in their development and do something they were not able to do before. A few such examples include: extending the reach of an existing offering, creating a new strand of work that strengthens sustainability, developing new partnerships, or simply becoming more organised within their own operations. These examples are by no means exhaustive.
If anyone is interested, they can get more info from info@bulldogtrust.org (please mark the subject line GBT/BT Funding Initiative)
www.bulldogtrust.org
Wilson (to LBJ's fury) kept us out of that one.....Cameron should keep us out of this....
But, if we have to do anything, surely it is better long term to send our own soldiers in rather than arm "rebels" who may be Al Quaeda, and using the weapons against us in five years time for all we know.
We wouldn't expect the police in this country to supply an inner city gang with knives and guns if they were "at war" with a rival gang who started the trouble.
As I said, I think we should steer well clear, but if we are going to intervene then send in our own troops. Fighting against an enemy decided by our government is what they are paid for.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 6m
Michael Gove: ‘Labour’s policy on free schools is so tortured they should send in the UN to end the suffering'
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 17m
Labour appears to have a welfare cap that isn't a cap, free schools that aren't free schools and Tory spending limits that aren't limits.
If possible, there should be a safe zone created for civilians, if that is possible.. but even that is fraught with danger.
edit - Journo says 'France has secured 'cultural diversity exception' - so will US also seek exceptions' - Barosso says it was never on the table as 'Cultural Diversity' already protected by existing treaties.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGRabkF6R2dtNkxqZnRHUHk0cE5fM0E#gid=0
Until Iran and Hezbollah intervened it did look like the war was going to be resolved fairly quickly with a rebel victory. Now it looks the other way around. Is it really in our interests for Syria, with its border on the Golan Heights, to become an Iranian puppet state?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. What is less clear is whether we can change this outcome and have the stomach for what is necessary to change that outcome. I suspect the answer to that is no as well. The shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan will hang over this country for a generation.
Apart from the effect on the long suffering Syrian people I don't really buy the argument that providing semi automatic weapons in Syria is a great threat to our security. The physical threat from these countries does not come from that kind of weapon. It comes from explosives. Giving them plastic would be a less good idea. The more substantial threat comes from radicalisation, which rather brings us back to Hague's point.
Something occurs to me: could it not be possible to manufacture guns that have a built-in obsolescence, for instance barrels that can only cope with (say) 500 firings before having to be changed? They would have to either ask us for more barrels or try to manufacture their own.
Or perhaps sealed magazines. But that probably would not be practical on the battlefield, and ingenious people could probably get around it.
It is essentially shorthand for intervention.
The extremists and radicalised hate the West already, for being the West, regardless of what we do.
There are probably no good outcomes for Syria, certainly in the short-term. There are no good outcomes for us, if we become involved, and I have yet to hear any cogent argument for why it is in Britain's national interest for us to be come involved.
O/T Did anything ever happen with that project you were looking for help on? We've just kicked off another funding round.
Thanks for the interest - an email will be with you soon
Frankly the notion of Iran controlling any other state is perhaps over estimating their abilities a tad. Sanctions means they are sitting on a pretty big reservoir of discontent at home.
If the problem isn't important enough for us to do that, then we should mind our own business.
Who says the people whose countries we keep interfering in want to be like Westerners? My money would say they probably don't
I disagree. Looking at it in a hard-headed realpolitik it would be quite advantageous for us to stand by and let Russia and Iran get involved in
1. a complete bloodbath televised by the world's media.
2. a humiliating defeat where the cream of their military are defeated by a couple of hundred blokes in carts with pitchforks, to be followed by an expensive, humbling withdrawal.
The morality of the situation might dictate we do otherwise, but morality and foreign policy aren't always the same thing.
As to whether it's important enough to send our own troops then there are many more options than just bussing over the green army.
There's no singular Syrian people with loyalists vs rebels with the rebels having some moderates and some extremists. There's an ethno-sectarian split so arming the "moderates" of either side is guaranteed to make the other side hate you.
It would be like arming the UDA because they were more "moderate" than the UFF or arming the IRA because they were more "moderate" than the INLA and not expecting the other side to hate you.
They're being totally dishonest.
If Assad survives we won't get any credit from no arming the rebels.
Logic therefore suggests...
Don't know enough about it to get too in depth. I've always been instinctively anti war of any kind unless it is explicit self defence of our citizens
That said, it's worth noting that private sector China's debt is very short-term, and therefore the maturity element can be largely managed by roll-overs. The interest portion may be significantly more modest. So the Minsky moment call may be somewhat premature. That said, either way, it suggests China's room to 'pump prime' the economy by easing credit conditions is limited.
1) Is this our problem?
Answer: no, not really. It's over 2,000 miles from Damascus to London as the crow flies. Syria is not a major trading partner and we have no particular ties with it.
So we should only get involved if the moral case for involvement is compelling and we can make a critical difference.
2) Is the moral case for involvement compelling?
Neither side is exactly stuffed full of good guys. If there is a moral case for involvement, it doesn't revolve around the merits of the participants.
3) The people on the ground are suffering badly. Is there anything we can do to alleviate their suffering?
This seems to me where we should be focussing our attention. But so far it seems that we aren't. Bombing for peace is not a strategy with a long track record of success.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/g8/10125029/G8-One-in-three-British-journalists-is-from-the-BBC.html
The main point remains the cabinet are being totally dishonest with the public about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict.
4) If we do (or do not) get involved, what are the risks of a regime coming to power that is dangerously antithetical to us? What happens if the winning side turns the country into another Iran?
Russia is maintaining that connection, fearing a loss of influence in the M-E and so the US feels bound to respond also.
So the trade off is (1) cost of intervention vs (2) benefit of a non-enemy in the Middle East
The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict because referring to them as "tribes" (which is probably accurate) is associated with primivitism in the UK. No point in insulting people for the sake of it. It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not (although it is important when you consider execution of the policy).
The biggest reason to get involved is because Obama said 'using chemical weapons is a red line'. He's now admitted chemical weapons have been used. So he needs to intervene, otherwise chemical weapons will be used with impunity in future.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/06/a-rare-outbreak-of-scepticism-in-syrian-coverage-but-was-it-justified.html
"In Mel Gibsons 1995 film Braveheart William Wallace is implied to be the real father of Edward III, despite Wallace's death many years before Edward's birth.[123]"
Frozen embryo.
Given how much of a big deal the use of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons is supposed to be I'm surprised there hasn't already been an air strike on some Syrian bases.
I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, but it would be consistent with what has been said.
http://www.fragilestates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Syrias-Religious-Demography.jpg
map of who controls where (It mostly follows the first map. May not be up to date.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_civil_war.png
Are this lot really credible as a united, coherent, consistent and credible threat to the West? The answer for me is a resounding no.
Russia loathes everybody, and that includes many Russians. Iran loathes Russia and the west, the Syrians loathe each other and probably loathe the non-muslim Russians.
I doubt whether together they could build a brewery, let alone arrange a p8ss up in one.
These dummies are being lined up by grandstanding politicians as bogeymen.
As far as Britain is concerned, the Iranian revolution led to a destabilisation of the Middle East, and (from our perspective) a worse, more restrictive lifestyle for many of the population. But from a non-interventionist perspective that is none of our business.
However Iran after the revolution has caused Britain many problems, from the embassy siege to sponsoring terrorism. (1) The regime under the Shah was poor; sadly the revolution has not helped many in the country, and both are far away from what we would like to see: a shining, stable democracy.
Syria under Assad also caused us problems wrt security (2); the question is which side will be better for us: a Syria where the revolutionaries win, or one where Assad is still in charge?
We need to be looking not just at the situation today, but what the situation may be in the future. And we behind our keyboards have no idea: that decision will be made by contacts with the various sides and then a judgement call I would not like to make.
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism
(2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism#Syria
Indeed. Will Syria under Assad cause us as many problems as as Syria under the sorts of people who kill children because of a comment about Mohammed, as Putin said yesterday.
The sorts of people who do that are, IMO, precisely the sorts of people who are more likely to sponsor terrorism against the West or inspire those here to commit similar acts.There is no good reason why we should arm the sorts of people who are our ideological enemies. The Saudis are already arming them and only a fool would think that they do not intend - if the rebels are successful - to spread their poisonous Wahabi-inspired sect of Islam to this part of the world, with all the consequences we've already seen elsewhere, for moderates, Christians and others in Syria. To be part of this is to shoot ourselves in the foot.
We may not intend to arm such people but sending arms to a country in the middle of a civil war will result in such people getting the weapons.
BTW the embassy siege - if I remember rightly - was caused by opponents of the Iranian regime not the regime itself. Our help got us no credit whatsoever with the Iranian regime. I don't expect any help we give to the rebels to get us any credit whatsoever either.
The government aren't arguing realpolitik. They're making up fake moral reasons to get the public to support arming the sort of people most likely to have have cheered Drummer Rigby's death.
"If Assad wins, Syria will be part of the anti-Western camp"
Assad has been on the Russian side for decades. Status quo. Things staying the same isn't a loss.
"Arming the rebels may help counter that - and give us a friend or at least a more neutral player in a strategic region."
Right...
The only bit of realpolitik that makes any sense is the bit about prolonging the civil war to get one side's extremists to kill the other side's extremists. I think all the evidence since 9/11 is whoever wins neither side is going to be a friend.
"The Cabinet are not talking about the ethno-sectarian nature of the conflict because referring to them as "tribes" (which is probably accurate) is associated with primivitism in the UK."
That's not the reason they're trying to pretend it's evil dictator vs everybody else and it's not accurate either. All the different groups are sub-divided into tribes. The tribes aren't their primary identity like in Libya. The Alawites have tribes. The Druze have tribes. The Sunnis have tribes etc. Tribes are like their version of welfare state.
"It's also not particularly relevant in the decision to get involved or not (although it is important when you consider execution of the policy)."
It's absolutely relevant. If it's everyone piling on the wicked dictator then the chance of a clean resolution is much higher than if it's an Iraq-style ethno-sectarian situation.
"The biggest reason to get involved is because Obama said 'using chemical weapons is a red line'."
The UN said the rebels used them first so that's probably bogus as well.
They could make the difference between a majority and being the largest party in a hung parliament.
Obama's farcical 'red line' is drawn in blood. He has backed himself into a corner, and he needs to act now everyone knows chemical weapons have been used. Failure to do so makes any threats against their use by others hollow words.
But it is now too late to act.
Expect more chemical weapon use by nasty regimes in the future.
http://worldshiaforum.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/ethno-religious-division-of-syria-in-west-syria-east-syria-and-kurdistan-is-the-only-solution/
That might be a cleanish *aim* but i wonder how many of the outside powers would favour it?
Intervening just to save Obama's face is the worst of all possible reasons. It will be too little, won't succeed and won't lessen the threat of other tyrants using chemical weapons. I don't think that one form of brutal killing is so much worse than another, frankly.
The real issue is whether the regime in question is a threat to us and whether any replacement is likely to be better.
See Afghanistan: we thought it made sense to weaken the Soviets there. But in doing so, we overlooked who were arming and that they were also being armed by the Saudis; we ignored what the Saudis actually believe (instead falling for the guff about their being an ally - which is all b*lls really) and the ideology they were spreading and ended up with a country in charge of a regime far more hostile to us. And we're still paying the price.
The media organisations have given up doing this sort of thing because they think people are either too thick to understand it or aren't interested.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2013/06/17/hp_scrapping_sheffield_jobs_grab_7m_scottish_grant/