There are a few unanswered questions, not least is whether the leaked memo is an accurate description of Ms Sturgeons conversation with the French diplomat. Did the FM get what she wanted with a Conservative government? She certainly seemed to get on with him very happily at the recent face to face meetings.
Except that question was answered within hours of the initial smear.
The FM and the French Ambassador and the French Consul all confirmed that it was never said. The memo itself said that the claim was highly unlikely.
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
May I have a go at defending Mr Carmichael? He does not seem to have many defenders here, in the face of the SNP aggression. Let´s see if I have got the story right....
There was a conversation between Mrs Sturgeon and the French ambassador. The words spoken may have been used, or not. They both deny it - "but they would do, wouldn´t they?"
The alleged comments were reported by a civil servant. He or she may have misheard, misremembered, may not have fully understood the language used. Do civil servants usually listen in on conversations? I´ve no idea, but if they are bystanding officially, I imagine they would report things correctly.
Whatever.... The report arrives on the desk of a SPAD, who accepts it as reliable information. As would anybody.... And recognises that it is political dynamite.
He gets clearance from the Minister, who no doubt sees that there is an apparent contradiction in what Mrs Sturgeon is saying. Apparently, she is simultaneously putting backbone into Labour and hoping for a Tory victory, as the best scenario for achieving independence for Scotland. Fair enough. Politicians can plan for two different scenarios.
The story gets published by the Telegraph, whose journalists apparenty fail to check with the sources.
Massive explosion, and everybody gets very excited.
Mr Carmichael accepts ministerial responsibility for the mistake - not so common these days - and says that, if he were still a minister, he would have resigned as a minister.
What was his mistake? Firstly, believing that a report from a civil servant was true. And secondly, trying to nail the apparent contradictions in the political position of the First Minister, by bringing her reported comments out into the open.
Obviously, a government minister would not wish to upset the French, would he? - and so he has to back-track officially, once the story has been denied, in order to keep the international peace.
That is my reading of the story. I have no inside knowledge. Although I see Mrs Sturgeon as a very skilled politician, I have no basis for accepting her word about events above that of other witnesses.
Mr Carmichael´s very decent offer to resign as a minister (in theory and in retrospect) is not the same thing as offering to resign now as an MP. The responsibilities are quite different. And he may, of course, be entirely innocent of serious wrongdoing.
And yet, in a world where ISIS might possess nukes, what kind of moron wants the UK to unilaterally disarm?
Oh look, those Islamofascist nutjobs have acquired the most powerful weapons on earth, we must set them a moral example by becoming a non-nuclear state immediately.
If they're truly "nutjobs" who thirst for their own annihilation, then clearly it doesn't make any difference what our offensive capacity is.
What are the odds of Cooper being a housewife to a concert pianist after 2020? If there is one person who is not going to be Labour leader it's her. Who are these 'others' that Labour List readers approve of?
May I have a go at defending Mr Carmichael? He does not seem to have many defenders here, in the face of the SNP aggression. Let´s see if I have got the story right....
There was a conversation between Mrs Sturgeon and the French ambassador. The words spoken may have been used, or not. They both deny it - "but they would do, wouldn´t they?"
The alleged comments were reported by a civil servant. He or she may have misheard, misremembered, may not have fully understood the language used. Do civil servants usually listen in on conversations? I´ve no idea, but if they are bystanding officially, I imagine they would report things correctly.
Whatever.... The report arrives on the desk of a SPAD, who accepts it as reliable information. As would anybody.... And recognises that it is political dynamite.
He gets clearance from the Minister, who no doubt sees that there is an apparent contradiction in what Mrs Sturgeon is saying. Apparently, she is simultaneously putting backbone into Labour and hoping for a Tory victory, as the best scenario for achieving independence for Scotland. Fair enough. Politicians can plan for two different scenarios.
The story gets published by the Telegraph, whose journalists apparenty fail to check with the sources.
Massive explosion, and everybody gets very excited.
Mr Carmichael accepts ministerial responsibility for the mistake - not so common these days - and says that, if he were still a minister, he would have resigned as a minister.
What was his mistake? Firstly, believing that a report from a civil servant was true. And secondly, trying to nail the apparent contradictions in the political position of the First Minister, by bringing her reported comments out into the open.
Obviously, a government minister would not wish to upset the French, would he? - and so he has to back-track officially, once the story has been denied, in order to keep the international peace.
That is my reading of the story. I have no inside knowledge. Although I see Mrs Sturgeon as a very skilled politician, I have no basis for accepting her word about events above that of other witnesses.
Mr Carmichael´s very decent offer to resign as a minister (in theory and in retrospect) is not the same thing as offering to resign now as an MP. The responsibilities are quite different. And he may, of course, be entirely innocent of serious wrongdoing.
May I have a go at defending Mr Carmichael? He does not seem to have many defenders here, in the face of the SNP aggression. Let´s see if I have got the story right....
There was a conversation between Mrs Sturgeon and the French ambassador. The words spoken may have been used, or not. They both deny it - "but they would do, wouldn´t they?"
The alleged comments were reported by a civil servant. He or she may have misheard, misremembered, may not have fully understood the language used. Do civil servants usually listen in on conversations? I´ve no idea, but if they are bystanding officially, I imagine they would report things correctly.
Whatever.... The report arrives on the desk of a SPAD, who accepts it as reliable information. As would anybody.... And recognises that it is political dynamite.
He gets clearance from the Minister, who no doubt sees that there is an apparent contradiction in what Mrs Sturgeon is saying. Apparently, she is simultaneously putting backbone into Labour and hoping for a Tory victory, as the best scenario for achieving independence for Scotland. Fair enough. Politicians can plan for two different scenarios.
The story gets published by the Telegraph, whose journalists apparenty fail to check with the sources.
Massive explosion, and everybody gets very excited.
Mr Carmichael accepts ministerial responsibility for the mistake - not so common these days - and says that, if he were still a minister, he would have resigned as a minister.
What was his mistake? Firstly, believing that a report from a civil servant was true. And secondly, trying to nail the apparent contradictions in the political position of the First Minister, by bringing her reported comments out into the open.
Obviously, a government minister would not wish to upset the French, would he? - and so he has to back-track officially, once the story has been denied, in order to keep the international peace.
That is my reading of the story. I have no inside knowledge. Although I see Mrs Sturgeon as a very skilled politician, I have no basis for accepting her word about events above that of other witnesses.
Mr Carmichael´s very decent offer to resign as a minister (in theory and in retrospect) is not the same thing as offering to resign now as an MP. The responsibilities are quite different. And he may, of course, be entirely innocent of serious wrongdoing.
Official diplomatic meetings do have FO translators present on anything other than purely social occasions, even if one or other parties speak the other language. Their purpose is to ensure and record that there is no ambiguity or misunderstanding. Now it may well be that they are incompetent at their jobs. On the other hand it is possible that their records are of the usual detailed standard.
Why is there a long thread about a voodoo poll? Better still, why is there a senior pollster writing a lengthy thread about a voodoo poll?
Slow week.
No, it's just that it's about the Labour leadership election, which is one of the more interesting (potentially) political things out there now. If it wasn't a voodoo poll it'd be something else on the same topic I'd think.
Perhaps instead of standing down, Carmichael (or the Lib Dems, though I doubt they have the funds) could consider repaying the £1.4 million which has just been flushed away on investigating his actions.
What?! Why the hell would it cost that much to investigate a leak?!
They found the leak which makes it one of the most cost-effective leak enquires of all time.
In that case perhaps it really is not in the public interest to spend money actually finding who leaks things, if it costs this much to determine that.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
There are a few unanswered questions, not least is whether the leaked memo is an accurate description of Ms Sturgeons conversation with the French diplomat. Did the FM get what she wanted with a Conservative government? She certainly seemed to get on with him very happily at the recent face to face meetings.
Except that question was answered within hours of the initial smear.
The FM and the French Ambassador and the French Consul all confirmed that it was never said. The memo itself said that the claim was highly unlikely.
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
If the truth has suddenly become important to the SNP can they fess up on what currency they would use and where their central bank would come from? Oh and what they envisage the future price of oil to be?
And yet, in a world where ISIS might possess nukes, what kind of moron wants the UK to unilaterally disarm?
Oh look, those Islamofascist nutjobs have acquired the most powerful weapons on earth, we must set them a moral example by becoming a non-nuclear state immediately.
If they're truly "nutjobs" who thirst for their own annihilation, then clearly it doesn't make any difference what our offensive capacity is.
Well, we could, you know, annihilate them before they come for us. With our nukes. I'd quite like that option.
Ahhh, the precautionary principle. Maybe we should take out the French while we're at it.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
I would therefore expect two weeks of intense pressure; two months of mild pressure; six month of sporadic news stories... and that will be about it.
I suspect, however, that he will not be the Liberal Democrat candidate for Orkney and Shetland in 2020.
That seems a probable outcome. I know EPG reckons the unionists would rally around the most likely candidate to keep out the SNP, and given the history of the seat even in such a time as this that would presumably be the LD candidate, but even if it risks their MSPs, the LDs cannot afford to risk a by-election now, and get a surging SNP vote and an outraged electorate vote against whoever would stand in place of Carmichael, and lose the seat.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Yes. Why do we want to get involved in a Sunni/ Shia civil war?
It's total bollocks, but it gives an idea of their ambition. After Ramadi and Palmyra, they occupy half of Iraq and much of Syria. They really are a state, and they really are a clear and present danger to the West. And they expand, globally.
I've just realised that this could be Obama's legacy. What he is mainly remembered for. Not Obamacare or the stupid Peace Prize, but the President who let ISIS rise to power. Not good.
Since Saudi Arabia has already offered cash to buy one from Pakistan i'm sure the Saudis will share it with ISIS like the other military and financial aid they gave them.
People don't understand the ambition of ISIS. Ultimately, they want to bring down all these feudal MidEast regimes. They will happily take Gulf and Saudi money, but then they will turn on their sponsors and devour them, by seeding chaos across the region, and recruiting thousands more sex starved jihadis.
Saudi Araba and Kuwait and Qatar will maybe reap what they sowed. Which would be kind of nice, except that this would threaten a Third World War engulfing us all.
"German car maker Audi has developed a new zero-emission fuel made from water and CO2, offering a possible alternative to electromobility. Produced at Audi’s new plant in Dresden, Germany, the fuel, dubbed the e-diesel, doesn’t require any mineral oil and is of such high quality it can be safely tanked into the car-maker’s premium engines."
"Audi aims to produce more than 3,000 litres of the fuel in the upcoming months and said it had already started developing a synthetic gasoline, dubbed the e-petrol, for vehicles with petrol engines."
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
It could easily move from a number of small scale proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia into one enormous proxy war between the two.
And of course the West will end up on the side of the Feudal Monarchy and not the Democratic state.
It's total bollocks, but it gives an idea of their ambition. After Ramadi and Palmyra, they occupy half of Iraq and much of Syria. They really are a state, and they really are a clear and present danger to the West. And they expand, globally.
I've just realised that this could be Obama's legacy. What he is mainly remembered for. Not Obamacare or the stupid Peace Prize, but the President who let ISIS rise to power. Not good.
Since Saudi Arabia has already offered cash to buy one from Pakistan i'm sure the Saudis will share it with ISIS like the other military and financial aid they gave them.
People don't understand the ambition of ISIS. Ultimately, they want to bring down all these feudal MidEast regimes. They will happily take Gulf and Saudi money, but then they will turn on their sponsors and devour them, by seeding chaos across the region, and recruiting thousands more sex starved jihadis.
Saudi Araba and Kuwait and Qatar will maybe reap what they sowed. Which would be kind of nice, except that this would threaten a Third World War engulfing us all.
"German car maker Audi has developed a new zero-emission fuel made from water and CO2, offering a possible alternative to electromobility. Produced at Audi’s new plant in Dresden, Germany, the fuel, dubbed the e-diesel, doesn’t require any mineral oil and is of such high quality it can be safely tanked into the car-maker’s premium engines."
"Audi aims to produce more than 3,000 litres of the fuel in the upcoming months and said it had already started developing a synthetic gasoline, dubbed the e-petrol, for vehicles with petrol engines."
Equally importantly, Shell can now make diesel from natural gas. Sure, you have to spend $30bn on the plant (see Pearl GTL), but the principle is now well understood.
Flightpath A lot depends on the debates, as this poll shows whichever of Kendal and Cooper gets to the last 2 has a chance of beating Burnham, at the moment it looks like Kendal, if Cooper performs best in the debates she has a chance
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
It could easily move from a number of small scale proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia into one enormous proxy war between the two.
And of course the West will end up on the side of the Feudal Monarchy and not the Democratic state.
International relations is a funny old business. It reminds me of the protestant, republican English Commonwealth and Protectorate going to war against the protestant, republican United Provinces in the 1650s, despite all the other threats that were out there one might think they shared.
The memo writing civil servant was NOT at the meeting. He was reporting from a later phone conversation with the French Consul General of what he thought the Consel had said about the conversation between the Ambassador and the First Minisiter! The Ambassador says it was not said. The First Minister says it was not said. The Consul General says it was not said and the civil servant reporting at third hand accepted that it may have got "lost in translation". I think we can conclude that it was not said.
However we now KNOW that it was leaked for political pusposes and that the former Scottish Secretary sanctioned that and then directly lied about it. He then let the enquiry trundle on until his Special Adviser coughed up when his phone record were presented so that it sould take him up to after the election.
How much does Cooper really want it? Any chance she'll support one of the others instead?
Well going from a family income of around a quarter of a million per annum to potentially £67k if she ends up on the wrong side might mean she wants it quite a lot.
How much does Cooper really want it? Any chance she'll support one of the others instead?
What would be amusing is if she ran on the basis of making a name for herself essentially, expecting to place well and get a nice Shadow Cabinet posting out of it, maybe a run for leader some way down the line, but actually ended up winning it outright instead.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Somehow we ended up allied with Iran on one hand and allied with the enemies of Iran on the other. And that prevents both Iran and the West from attacking ISIS with full strength which is the secret of their success. At some point someone has to figure what the priority is, is it ISIS or Iran?
Because you can't have the West sending money and weapons to islamic radicals to fight Iran at the same time as fighting islamic radicals with Iran, it's ridiculous.
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
So we have two official versions, then, Dr Fox. The offical report says one thing. The First Minister says another. One of the versions would be rather unacceptable in international diplomacy. Likewise, it might sour relations between the Fist Minister and the British Government. Therefore Mrs Sturgeon´s version has to be believed - officially.
The consequence is that Mr Cameron´s Secretary of State for Scotland is hung out to dry. But that doesn´t matter - he is only a Lib Dem after all.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
It could easily move from a number of small scale proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia into one enormous proxy war between the two.
And of course the West will end up on the side of the Feudal Monarchy and not the Democratic state.
It will probably take a full blown religious war where the various militias feed off the civilians for 30years before those left alive grow tired of it all.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Somehow we ended up allied with Iran on one hand and allied with the enemies of Iran on the other. And that prevents both Iran and the West from attacking ISIS with full strength which is the secret of their success. At some point someone has to figure what the priority is, is it ISIS or Iran?
Because you can't have the West sending money and weapons to islamic radicals to fight Iran at the same time as fighting islamic radicals with Iran, it's ridiculous.
It is funny to think that if the United States were a democracy and not a corporatist state, Iran would never have been an enemy in the first place and may well have been in a reasonably strong and stable situation from which to stabilise the entire region.
It's total bollocks, but it gives an idea of their ambition. After Ramadi and Palmyra, they occupy half of Iraq and much of Syria. They really are a state, and they really are a clear and present danger to the West. And they expand, globally.
I've just realised that this could be Obama's legacy. What he is mainly remembered for. Not Obamacare or the stupid Peace Prize, but the President who let ISIS rise to power. Not good.
Since Saudi Arabia has already offered cash to buy one from Pakistan i'm sure the Saudis will share it with ISIS like the other military and financial aid they gave them.
People don't understand the ambition of ISIS. Ultimately, they want to bring down all these feudal MidEast regimes. They will happily take Gulf and Saudi money, but then they will turn on their sponsors and devour them, by seeding chaos across the region, and recruiting thousands more sex starved jihadis.
Saudi Araba and Kuwait and Qatar will maybe reap what they sowed. Which would be kind of nice, except that this would threaten a Third World War engulfing us all.
"German car maker Audi has developed a new zero-emission fuel made from water and CO2, offering a possible alternative to electromobility. Produced at Audi’s new plant in Dresden, Germany, the fuel, dubbed the e-diesel, doesn’t require any mineral oil and is of such high quality it can be safely tanked into the car-maker’s premium engines."
"Audi aims to produce more than 3,000 litres of the fuel in the upcoming months and said it had already started developing a synthetic gasoline, dubbed the e-petrol, for vehicles with petrol engines."
Equally importantly, Shell can now make diesel from natural gas. Sure, you have to spend $30bn on the plant (see Pearl GTL), but the principle is now well understood.
And given how common natural gas is...
Indeed the last oil crisis did wonders in the field of energy consumption and production. The next oil crisis will probably be the final one before conventional oil will be abandoned in favour of other synthetic fuels. Saudi Arabia's days are numbered by virtue of technological development.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Yes. Why do we want to get involved in a Sunni/ Shia civil war?
If it really does kick off that way, how will the large Muslim populations in the West react?
Dair/Speedy/RCS We will end up on the side of neither, public opinion would certainly not tolerate any groundtroops in support of Saudi Arabia, indeed I doubt Saudi would get involved in a fullscale war with Iran, especially given the ISIS bombings in Saudi today. Saudi would probably allow Iran to at least weaken or destroy ISIS, then perhaps Saudi would link in with Al Nusra and Sunni rebels groups against Iran.
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
So we have two official versions, then, Dr Fox. The offical report says one thing. The First Minister says another. One of the versions would be rather unacceptable in international diplomacy. Likewise, it might sour relations between the Fist Minister and the British Government. Therefore Mrs Sturgeon´s version has to be believed - officially.
The consequence is that Mr Cameron´s Secretary of State for Scotland is hung out to dry. But that doesn´t matter - he is only a Lib Dem after all.
Par for the course, really.
The Fist Minister was Norman Lamont, surely?
And what is your point? Are you suggesting Cameron invited, or countenanced, the leak?
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Yes. Why do we want to get involved in a Sunni/ Shia civil war?
If it really does kick off that way, how will the large Muslim populations in the West react?
We will be involved, like it or not.
Just like the large German populations fought the large British populations in the us during the second world war.
Dair/Speedy/RCS We will end up on the side of neither, public opinion would certainly not tolerate any groundtroops in support of Saudi Arabia, indeed I doubt Saudi would get involved in a fullscale war with Iran, especially given the ISIS bombings in Saudi today. Saudi would probably allow Iran to at least weaken or destroy ISIS, then perhaps Saudi would link in with Al Nusra and Sunni rebels groups against Iran.
I'm suggesting we sell arms to both sides. There's good money to be made there.
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
So we have two official versions, then, Dr Fox. The offical report says one thing. The First Minister says another. One of the versions would be rather unacceptable in international diplomacy. Likewise, it might sour relations between the Fist Minister and the British Government. Therefore Mrs Sturgeon´s version has to be believed - officially.
The consequence is that Mr Cameron´s Secretary of State for Scotland is hung out to dry. But that doesn´t matter - he is only a Lib Dem after all.
Par for the course, really.
The Fist Minister was Norman Lamont, surely?
And what is your point? Are you suggesting Cameron invited, or countenanced, the leak?
I'm fairly sure Norman Lamont was not first minister of Scotland...
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
So we have two official versions, then, Dr Fox. The offical report says one thing. The First Minister says another. One of the versions would be rather unacceptable in international diplomacy. Likewise, it might sour relations between the Fist Minister and the British Government. Therefore Mrs Sturgeon´s version has to be believed - officially.
The consequence is that Mr Cameron´s Secretary of State for Scotland is hung out to dry. But that doesn´t matter - he is only a Lib Dem after all.
Par for the course, really.
The Fist Minister was Norman Lamont, surely?
And what is your point? Are you suggesting Cameron invited, or countenanced, the leak?
I'm fairly sure Norman Lamont was not first minister of Scotland...
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Somehow we ended up allied with Iran on one hand and allied with the enemies of Iran on the other. And that prevents both Iran and the West from attacking ISIS with full strength which is the secret of their success. At some point someone has to figure what the priority is, is it ISIS or Iran?
Because you can't have the West sending money and weapons to islamic radicals to fight Iran at the same time as fighting islamic radicals with Iran, it's ridiculous.
It is funny to think that if the United States were a democracy and not a corporatist state, Iran would never have been an enemy in the first place and may well have been in a reasonably strong and stable situation from which to stabilise the entire region.
The USA is not a corporatist state, it's a modern western democracy which in ancient greek terms (the inventors of democracy) is an elected oligarchy. There is no democracy in the world today in the actual sense of the people making decisions and ruling the state, the closest equivalent is Switzerland.
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
So we have two official versions, then, Dr Fox. The offical report says one thing. The First Minister says another. One of the versions would be rather unacceptable in international diplomacy. Likewise, it might sour relations between the Fist Minister and the British Government. Therefore Mrs Sturgeon´s version has to be believed - officially.
The consequence is that Mr Cameron´s Secretary of State for Scotland is hung out to dry. But that doesn´t matter - he is only a Lib Dem after all.
Par for the course, really.
The Fist Minister was Norman Lamont, surely?
And what is your point? Are you suggesting Cameron invited, or countenanced, the leak?
I'm fairly sure Norman Lamont was not first minister of Scotland...
Dair/Speedy/RCS We will end up on the side of neither, public opinion would certainly not tolerate any groundtroops in support of Saudi Arabia, indeed I doubt Saudi would get involved in a fullscale war with Iran, especially given the ISIS bombings in Saudi today. Saudi would probably allow Iran to at least weaken or destroy ISIS, then perhaps Saudi would link in with Al Nusra and Sunni rebels groups against Iran.
I'm suggesting we sell arms to both sides. There's good money to be made there.
I think the West already does. Well at least they sell weapons to Iraq to fight ISIS and sells weapons to Saudi Arabia which ends up to ISIS to fight Iraq.
But politically wise it's suicide since every governments political opponents can go on the attack based on the chaos and embarrassment in foreign affairs. Not to mention the scandals that will surface (Iran-Contra, Iraq WMD's, Dr. Fox).
With Iran led by Ayatollah Khomeini and supported by Shia militias on one side and Isis on the other could this be the final sequel to Alien v Predator?
No one seems to have noticed that, discounting "others", three of the four candidates are women and that one of them is Mrs Balls and one seems way off the pace. It's about time that Labour embraced womanhood other than through totally undemocratic all women shortlists. Go Liz.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Yes. Why do we want to get involved in a Sunni/ Shia civil war?
If it really does kick off that way, how will the large Muslim populations in the West react?
We will be involved, like it or not.
Just like the large German populations fought the large British populations in the us during the second world war.
Yes. The parallels are exact. Who can forget those naturalised British-Germans who beheaded British soldiers in East London in the mid 1930s? And we all remember the French-Germans who marched into Parisian newspaper offices and slaughtered journalists in the summer of 1937.
There is a precedent for your thinking, New York during the american civil war suffered riots by irishmen against blacks over the draft.
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Somehow we ended up allied with Iran on one hand and allied with the enemies of Iran on the other. And that prevents both Iran and the West from attacking ISIS with full strength which is the secret of their success. At some point someone has to figure what the priority is, is it ISIS or Iran?
Because you can't have the West sending money and weapons to islamic radicals to fight Iran at the same time as fighting islamic radicals with Iran, it's ridiculous.
It is funny to think that if the United States were a democracy and not a corporatist state, Iran would never have been an enemy in the first place and may well have been in a reasonably strong and stable situation from which to stabilise the entire region.
The USA is not a corporatist state, it's a modern western democracy which in ancient greek terms (the inventors of democracy) is an elected oligarchy. There is no democracy in the world today in the actual sense of the people making decisions and ruling the state, the closest equivalent is Switzerland.
What is really funny is that Dair can come out with dipstick comments like that. It's easy to see what drives membership of the Scottish National Party.
Excellent commentary by Fareed Zakaria on Newsnight on Obama's strategy 'let them kill each other, we do not have a dog in this fight, protect against counterterrorism at home'
Amusing how UKIP and the yellow peril with a grand total of 9 MPs between them have managed to find the sticky brown stuff far more readily than the 3 larger parties post election.
Carmichael is 1/8th of the parliamentary party, his actions are reflecting terribly as the sole representative in Scotland too. Someone needs to get, as Mike says Farron & Lamb's view on this.
With Iran led by Ayatollah Khomeini and supported by Shia militias on one side and Isis on the other could this be the final sequel to Alien v Predator?
There are a few unanswered questions, not least is whether the leaked memo is an accurate description of Ms Sturgeons conversation with the French diplomat. Did the FM get what she wanted with a Conservative government? She certainly seemed to get on with him very happily at the recent face to face meetings.
Except that question was answered within hours of the initial smear.
The FM and the French Ambassador and the French Consul all confirmed that it was never said. The memo itself said that the claim was highly unlikely.
They would deny it of course, diplomats are accomplished decievers, but was it said? We would only find out if there was a recording or an independent witness. The civil servant seems to have had doubts but did record it in the memo.
If the truth has suddenly become important to the SNP can they fess up on what currency they would use and where their central bank would come from? Oh and what they envisage the future price of oil to be?
The Nats are new to the LD toast game - it's not as easy as it looks..
SeanT General Qassam Suleimani is rumoured to be moving towards Ramadi shortly with the Quds, the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Shia militias also have the full backing of Iran as does Assad, backed by Hizbollah. We could be moving to a fullscale Shia-Sunni civil war if Isis advances further, remember too Iran has an army of 500,000 with over a million including reserves and a population greater than that of Iraq and Syria combined
Yes. Why do we want to get involved in a Sunni/ Shia civil war?
If it really does kick off that way, how will the large Muslim populations in the West react?
We will be involved, like it or not.
Just like the large German populations fought the large British populations in the us during the second world war.
Yes. The parallels are exact. Who can forget those naturalised British-Germans who beheaded British soldiers in East London in the mid 1930s? And we all remember the French-Germans who marched into Parisian newspaper offices and slaughtered journalists in the summer of 1937.
There is a precedent for your thinking, New York during the american civil war suffered riots by irishmen against blacks over the draft.
I should, in the interests of transparency, say that ICE TWINS has so far sold about 3 copies in America. .
I'm surprised. Is it something to do with the US distribution network Mr or Ms Tremayne has?
Edit: I raised an eyebrow at the second sentence of page 8 (hardback edition): "Me and my friends were on the next table over." But then I realised that two solecisms in one short sentence was probably about right for the wife of an architect in modern Camden.
Excellent commentary by Fareed Zakaria on Newsnight on Obama's strategy 'let them kill each other, we do not have a dog in this fight, protect against counterterrorism at home'
The problem is that stability has to be encouraged, simply letting them level the middle east and northern africa with the chaos expanding towards Europe is not a strategy.
Simply letting ISIS playing Attila the Hun won't do, the Romans also thought that Attila was a barbarian problem until Attila chased all the germanic tribes across the border and marched on Rome.
SeanT He also said we should arm the Kurds and basically leave the Shias, arm Jordan, but otherwise leave the Shias and Sunnis to it. On your broader argument I think we are getting to the point where we have had 2 of the worst foreign policy presidents in US history back to back, George W and Obama, one too busy invading everywhere without considering the consequences, the other unwilling to invade anywhere even to avoid WW3. Hillary or whichever Republican faces her will have one hell of a mess to clear up!
Ah, wonderful....London Labour mayoral selection also have nominations by CLPs...
So far...
Kingston and Subirton: Khan and Jowell Ealing North: Khan and Jowell Dulwich: Jowell Camberwell & Peckham: Khan and Jowell Leyton and Wanstead: Khan and Abbott
Speedy Yes, but I will leave you to decide which is which
Compared with ISIS, Iran is Oxford. At least the Iranians value culture and history enough so they don't blow their ancient cities to smithereens like ISIS does, between them I have to choose the more civilized of the two.
Speedy Indeed, but Attila the Hun did not face Iran and an army multiple times his size, nor modern fighter planes and technology, ISIS is not going to march much beyond Sunni lands
Excellent commentary by Fareed Zakaria on Newsnight on Obama's strategy 'let them kill each other, we do not have a dog in this fight, protect against counterterrorism at home'
The problem is that stability has to be encouraged, simply letting them level the middle east and northern africa with the chaos expanding towards Europe is not a strategy.
Simply letting ISIS playing Attila the Hun won't do, the Romans also thought that Attila was a barbarian problem until Attila chased all the germanic tribes across the border and marched on Rome.
No such thing as excellent commentary by Fareed Zakaria. He is consistently crap.
I note with disgust that there are STILL some PBers prepared in effect to call both the French Ambassador and Nicola Surgeon liars.
They appear to be for the most part the same people who now declare the 56 SNP MPs impotent in spite of having achieved a Cameron victory that the fantasists claim Sturgeon wanted.
Don't mistake the SNP strategists for the buffoons who have destroyed the Lib Dems :-)
Speedy Indeed, but Attila the Hun did not face Iran and an army multiple times his size, nor modern fighter planes and technology, ISIS is not going to march much beyond Sunni lands
You do realise "Sunni lands" represent about 95% of the Islamic world?
I don't for a moment suggest ISIS will take over all of Sunni Islam, but given their hostile aggression, all they have to do is take over a couple of states - say most of crazy Syria and oil-rich Iraq, for starters - and they will be a vicious threat to world peace.
Having established themselves as the power of Sunni extremism, all the other extremists groups on the periphery will become their satraps, as is already happening with Al Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria.
Speedy Indeed, but Attila the Hun did not face Iran and an army multiple times his size, nor modern fighter planes and technology, ISIS is not going to march much beyond Sunni lands
And your statement completely fails to understand two things
1. That how many personnel you got and how many planes you have is irrelevant if you cant use them properly or project them well outside your own territory and into hostile terrain and sustain them for long periods. Iran's direct force power projection capabilities are limited both in numbers and sustainability which is one reason exactly why they've not deployed them.
Driving the odd brigade across to defend Baghdad for 6 months, driving through friendly Shia territory, is not long term strategic power projection. Its just building a buffer. If you'd also notice, Iran's Ayatollahs have not pushed the Shia militia proxies hard into the Sunni heartland areas of Iraq half as much as they could have because they know rightly where it will put them. They know because their proxies ran amok when they did it before.
2. How counter insurgency is won. It isn't won by numbers nor planes, and never has been, its won by intelligence, attrition, a political track and will to stick it out and destroying your opponents from the inside out and the outside in.
Again, and I've said months and months ago on this forum, the germ of IS's long term defeat is already there, its called IS.
SeanT He also said we should arm the Kurds and basically leave the Shias, arm Jordan, but otherwise leave the Shias and Sunnis to it. On your broader argument I think we are getting to the point where we have had 2 of the worst foreign policy presidents in US history back to back, George W and Obama, one too busy invading everywhere without considering the consequences, the other unwilling to invade anywhere even to avoid WW3. Hillary or whichever Republican faces her will have one hell of a mess to clear up!
SeanT/TimT Shias make up 90% of the 70 million population of Iran and the majority of the population of Iraq, Egypt, the biggest Sunni Arab nation, is run by a military regime which certainly not will allow ISIS to get anywhere near it, nor will Jordan
but its an excellent look at how ISIS have used the techniques of Saddam's secret police to conquer and control. A lot of their foot soldiers may be crazies but at the top level they seem to know what they are about.
Speedy Indeed, but Attila the Hun did not face Iran and an army multiple times his size, nor modern fighter planes and technology, ISIS is not going to march much beyond Sunni lands
You do realise "Sunni lands" represent about 95% of the Islamic world?
I don't for a moment suggest ISIS will take over all of Sunni Islam, but given their hostile aggression, all they have to do is take over a couple of states - say most of crazy Syria and oil-rich Iraq, for starters - and they will be a vicious threat to world peace.
Having established themselves as the power of Sunni extremism, all the other extremists groups on the periphery will become their satraps, as is already happening with Al Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria.
Exactly right.
This brilliant NYTimes infographic explains their strategy very well (I linked it before but I'll do it again)
Yokel The ultimate defeat of ISIS will come when Sunni tribes turn against them, but that also requires the Iraqi government to reach out to Sunnis too, but 2/3 of the population of Iraq is Shia they just need greater representation for the other 1/3
FlightPathl And whose brother invaded Iraq in the first place? But Hillary's argument is she would have armed and supported 'moderate' rebels earlier before ISIS took hold
Yokel The ultimate defeat of ISIS will come when Sunni tribes turn against them, but that also requires the Iraqi government to reach out to Sunnis too, but 2/3 of the population of Iraq is Shia they just need greater representation for the other 1/3
FlightPathl And whose brother invaded Iraq in the first place? But Hillary's argument is she would have armed and supported 'moderate' rebels earlier before ISIS took hold
Of course we know Hillary will have an argument. Just like her husband had for ignoring bin ladin.
TimB We are already providing air support to the Kurds and Iraqi army, what would ground forces achieve until the Sunnis in Iraq turn against ISIS? It would just be another long and bloody war of occupation and ground troops are hardly going to be sent into Syria to support Assad. For the moment, and until the Iraqi government reaches out to Sunnis and improves the best that can be achieved is to contain ISIS outside of Shia Iraq and Kurdish areas in Iraq and Syria and try and support alternative rebel movements in Syria and turn them against ISIS first
TimB We are already providing air support to the Kurds and Iraqi army, what would ground forces achieve until the Sunnis in Iraq turn against ISIS? It would just be another long and bloody war of occupation and ground troops are hardly going to be sent into Syria to support Assad. For the moment, and until the Iraqi government reaches out to Sunnis and improves the best that can be achieved is to contain ISIS outside of Shia Iraq and Kurdish areas in Iraq and Syria and try and support alternative rebel movements in Syria and turn them against ISIS first
Furtively arm Assad. Who gives a F. And threaten Turkey with all hell, and likewise the Kuwaitis and Saudis who are funding these Nazi scum.
The Egyptians are quietly murdering all the Islamists. And quite right too. When you see the alternative.
This is a mental virus which can only be extinguished by the death of the host.
Assad has comparatively little left. There is already major discontent amongst some of his own regime about the fact that he isn't controlling the war effort in his own country, much of it is Iranian proxies. Assad is also beginning to run out of bodies and money. One thing he isn't short of is basic kit.
Curiously the Iranians aren't giving him the loans he has been asking for. Perhaps there is a sign there that Assad isn't the horse to back. The Iranians may not be particular fans of outside overtures to help Assad whilst they have him by the nuts. The Russians have been approached recently about stepping back as well and haven't exactly threw the idea out.
but its an excellent look at how ISIS have used the techniques of Saddam's secret police to conquer and control. A lot of their foot soldiers may be crazies but at the top level they seem to know what they are about.
A lot of the ISIS guys are probably former Saddam loyalists, or their sons. And Saddam's model for rule by terror was Stalin. For anyone interested, Republic of Fear is an informative, if terrifying read. The Iraq Action Group final report (the Duelfer report) also goes into how Saddam used fear to maintain unquestioned authority over even his inner circle.
TimB We are already providing air support to the Kurds and Iraqi army, what would ground forces achieve until the Sunnis in Iraq turn against ISIS? It would just be another long and bloody war of occupation and ground troops are hardly going to be sent into Syria to support Assad. For the moment, and until the Iraqi government reaches out to Sunnis and improves the best that can be achieved is to contain ISIS outside of Shia Iraq and Kurdish areas in Iraq and Syria and try and support alternative rebel movements in Syria and turn them against ISIS first
Furtively arm Assad. Who gives a F. And threaten Turkey with all hell, and likewise the Kuwaitis and Saudis who are funding these Nazi scum.
The Egyptians are quietly murdering all the Islamists. And quite right too. When you see the alternative.
This is a mental virus which can only be extinguished by the death of the host.
Assad has comparatively little left. There is already major discontent amongst some of his own regime about the fact that he isn't controlling the war effort in his own country, much of it is Iranian proxies. Assad is also beginning to run out of bodies and money. One thing he isn't short of is basic kit.
Curiously the Iranians aren't giving him the loans he has been asking for. Perhaps there is a sign there that Assad isn't the horse to back. The Iranians may not be particular fans of outside overtures to help Assad whilst they have him by the nuts. The Russians have been approached recently about stepping back as well and haven't exactly threw the idea out.
Yokel, any idea of how the Iran/Assad thing is playing out with Hizbollah and internal Lebanese politics. Things seem to have gone quite in Lebanon - I don't know if that is because they have, or just that it is not getting reported. I haven't visited in 2 years, so no longer have a feel for what's happening on the ground.
SeanT I certainly would let Egypt get on with it, they may also invade Libya too to try and restore order there and indeed pressure needs to be put on the Saudis and Qatar too and Turkey, but largescale groundtroops for now would only inflame the situation even further, more needs to be done with special forces instead to stir up resistance to ISIS amongst Sunni tribes
FlightpathL He did launch missile attacks against him, but even George W Bush was embracing a 'compassionate conservatism' approach to domestic policy at home while largely isolationism abroad until 9/11
TimB We are already providing air support to the Kurds and Iraqi army, what would ground forces achieve until the Sunnis in Iraq turn against ISIS? It would just be another long and bloody war of occupation and ground troops are hardly going to be sent into Syria to support Assad. For the moment, and until the Iraqi government reaches out to Sunnis and improves the best that can be achieved is to contain ISIS outside of Shia Iraq and Kurdish areas in Iraq and Syria and try and support alternative rebel movements in Syria and turn them against ISIS first
Furtively arm Assad. Who gives a F. And threaten Turkey with all hell, and likewise the Kuwaitis and Saudis who are funding these Nazi scum.
The Egyptians are quietly murdering all the Islamists. And quite right too. When you see the alternative.
This is a mental virus which can only be extinguished by the death of the host.
Assad has comparatively little left. There is already major discontent amongst some of his own regime about the fact that he isn't controlling the war effort in his own country, much of it is Iranian proxies. Assad is also beginning to run out of bodies and money. One thing he isn't short of is basic kit.
Curiously the Iranians aren't giving him the loans he has been asking for. Perhaps there is a sign there that Assad isn't the horse to back. The Iranians may not be particular fans of outside overtures to help Assad whilst they have him by the nuts. The Russians have been approached recently about stepping back as well and haven't exactly threw the idea out.
Yokel, any idea of how the Iran/Assad thing is playing out with Hizbollah and internal Lebanese politics. Things seem to have gone quite in Lebanon - I don't know if that is because they have, or just that it is not getting reported. I haven't visited in 2 years, so no longer have a feel for what's happening on the ground.
I'm not hugely informed about that side. Hezbollah are still publicly onboard with Assad but recently had to issue a denial that they were going to drop him. The issue for Hezbollah is that they have lost a good number of bodies in the meat grinder so militarily, if not yet politically, they are facing some damage, the extent of which I couldn't tell you with any accuracy.
They've been working in recent weeks on trying to get the Lebanese army involved in border clashes against Syria insurgents but the generals have said no. Its an interesting bit of arm chancing though.
I note with disgust that there are STILL some PBers prepared in effect to call both the French Ambassador and Nicola Surgeon liars.
They appear to be for the most part the same people who now declare the 56 SNP MPs impotent in spite of having achieved a Cameron victory that the fantasists claim Sturgeon wanted.
Don't mistake the SNP strategists for the buffoons who have destroyed the Lib Dems :-)
No, no, no. May they (and their ilk who run the Westminster parties) continue to underestimate the SNP's strategic mastery. The longer they do, the better. The Union will be over before they've got their pants on.
SeanT Indeed, in the case of the Middle East military regimes tend to be more successful than the theocracies, monarchies and democracies they come up with
Comments
There was a conversation between Mrs Sturgeon and the French ambassador. The words spoken may have been used, or not. They both deny it - "but they would do, wouldn´t they?"
The alleged comments were reported by a civil servant. He or she may have misheard, misremembered, may not have fully understood the language used. Do civil servants usually listen in on conversations? I´ve no idea, but if they are bystanding officially, I imagine they would report things correctly.
Whatever.... The report arrives on the desk of a SPAD, who accepts it as reliable information. As would anybody.... And recognises that it is political dynamite.
He gets clearance from the Minister, who no doubt sees that there is an apparent contradiction in what Mrs Sturgeon is saying. Apparently, she is simultaneously putting backbone into Labour and hoping for a Tory victory, as the best scenario for achieving independence for Scotland. Fair enough. Politicians can plan for two different scenarios.
The story gets published by the Telegraph, whose journalists apparenty fail to check with the sources.
Massive explosion, and everybody gets very excited.
Mr Carmichael accepts ministerial responsibility for the mistake - not so common these days - and says that, if he were still a minister, he would have resigned as a minister.
What was his mistake? Firstly, believing that a report from a civil servant was true. And secondly, trying to nail the apparent contradictions in the political position of the First Minister, by bringing her reported comments out into the open.
Obviously, a government minister would not wish to upset the French, would he? - and so he has to back-track officially, once the story has been denied, in order to keep the international peace.
That is my reading of the story. I have no inside knowledge. Although I see Mrs Sturgeon as a very skilled politician, I have no basis for accepting her word about events above that of other witnesses.
Mr Carmichael´s very decent offer to resign as a minister (in theory and in retrospect) is not the same thing as offering to resign now as an MP. The responsibilities are quite different. And he may, of course, be entirely innocent of serious wrongdoing.
Who are these 'others' that Labour List readers approve of?
No, it's just that it's about the Labour leadership election, which is one of the more interesting (potentially) political things out there now. If it wasn't a voodoo poll it'd be something else on the same topic I'd think.
Going to be a tremendous amount of "Allāhu Akbar"
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2015/apr/audi-e-diesel.cfm
"German car maker Audi has developed a new zero-emission fuel made from water and CO2, offering a possible alternative to electromobility.
Produced at Audi’s new plant in Dresden, Germany, the fuel, dubbed the e-diesel, doesn’t require any mineral oil and is of such high quality it can be safely tanked into the car-maker’s premium engines."
"Audi aims to produce more than 3,000 litres of the fuel in the upcoming months and said it had already started developing a synthetic gasoline, dubbed the e-petrol, for vehicles with petrol engines."
And of course the West will end up on the side of the Feudal Monarchy and not the Democratic state.
Carnyx For most Tories the SNP is far more the enemy than the LDs
And given how common natural gas is...
Yoiu don't seem to have caught up even now.
The memo writing civil servant was NOT at the meeting. He was reporting from a later phone conversation with the French Consul General of what he thought the Consel had said about the conversation between the Ambassador and the First Minisiter! The Ambassador says it was not said. The First Minister says it was not said. The Consul General says it was not said and the civil servant reporting at third hand accepted that it may have got "lost in translation". I think we can conclude that it was not said.
However we now KNOW that it was leaked for political pusposes and that the former Scottish Secretary sanctioned that and then directly lied about it. He then let the enquiry trundle on until his Special Adviser coughed up when his phone record were presented so that it sould take him up to after the election.
Carmichael is toast.
And that prevents both Iran and the West from attacking ISIS with full strength which is the secret of their success.
At some point someone has to figure what the priority is, is it ISIS or Iran?
Because you can't have the West sending money and weapons to islamic radicals to fight Iran at the same time as fighting islamic radicals with Iran, it's ridiculous.
The consequence is that Mr Cameron´s Secretary of State for Scotland is hung out to dry. But that doesn´t matter - he is only a Lib Dem after all.
Par for the course, really.
The next oil crisis will probably be the final one before conventional oil will be abandoned in favour of other synthetic fuels.
Saudi Arabia's days are numbered by virtue of technological development.
And what is your point? Are you suggesting Cameron invited, or countenanced, the leak?
There is no democracy in the world today in the actual sense of the people making decisions and ruling the state, the closest equivalent is Switzerland.
It was NOT an offcial account. It was third hand tittle tattle lost in translation.
Carmichael is NOT being hung out to dry. He leaked, then lied then got caught.
He should resign now.
Well at least they sell weapons to Iraq to fight ISIS and sells weapons to Saudi Arabia which ends up to ISIS to fight Iraq.
But politically wise it's suicide since every governments political opponents can go on the attack based on the chaos and embarrassment in foreign affairs.
Not to mention the scandals that will surface (Iran-Contra, Iraq WMD's, Dr. Fox).
Should Carmichael resign?
YES 97%
No 3%
2,859 VOTES RECORDED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
Carmichael is 1/8th of the parliamentary party, his actions are reflecting terribly as the sole representative in Scotland too. Someone needs to get, as Mike says Farron & Lamb's view on this.
Edit: I raised an eyebrow at the second sentence of page 8 (hardback edition): "Me and my friends were on the next table over." But then I realised that two solecisms in one short sentence was probably about right for the wife of an architect in modern Camden.
And now we have enough proof about where waffle over will gets you.
Simply letting ISIS playing Attila the Hun won't do, the Romans also thought that Attila was a barbarian problem until Attila chased all the germanic tribes across the border and marched on Rome.
So far...
Kingston and Subirton: Khan and Jowell
Ealing North: Khan and Jowell
Dulwich: Jowell
Camberwell & Peckham: Khan and Jowell
Leyton and Wanstead: Khan and Abbott
At least the Iranians value culture and history enough so they don't blow their ancient cities to smithereens like ISIS does, between them I have to choose the more civilized of the two.
Goodnight.
I would have though the SNP have proven pretty good at toasting the Lib Dems, the Tories and Labour of late!
They appear to be for the most part the same people who now declare the 56 SNP MPs impotent in spite of having achieved a Cameron victory that the fantasists claim Sturgeon wanted.
Don't mistake the SNP strategists for the buffoons who have destroyed the Lib Dems :-)
1. That how many personnel you got and how many planes you have is irrelevant if you cant use them properly or project them well outside your own territory and into hostile terrain and sustain them for long periods. Iran's direct force power projection capabilities are limited both in numbers and sustainability which is one reason exactly why they've not deployed them.
Driving the odd brigade across to defend Baghdad for 6 months, driving through friendly Shia territory, is not long term strategic power projection. Its just building a buffer. If you'd also notice, Iran's Ayatollahs have not pushed the Shia militia proxies hard into the Sunni heartland areas of Iraq half as much as they could have because they know rightly where it will put them. They know because their proxies ran amok when they did it before.
2. How counter insurgency is won. It isn't won by numbers nor planes, and never has been, its won by intelligence, attrition, a political track and will to stick it out and destroying your opponents from the inside out and the outside in.
Again, and I've said months and months ago on this forum, the germ of IS's long term defeat is already there, its called IS.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/mike-huckabee-supports-josh-duggar-family-molestation-118213.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/22/huckabee-defends-duggar-son-accused-of-molestation.html
Defending and making excuses for his close friend that confessed on charges of child molestation is politically probably the end.
The question now is where do Huckabee supporters go in the primaries?
Goodnight.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html
but its an excellent look at how ISIS have used the techniques of Saddam's secret police to conquer and control. A lot of their foot soldiers may be crazies but at the top level they seem to know what they are about.
Curiously the Iranians aren't giving him the loans he has been asking for. Perhaps there is a sign there that Assad isn't the horse to back. The Iranians may not be particular fans of outside overtures to help Assad whilst they have him by the nuts. The Russians have been approached recently about stepping back as well and haven't exactly threw the idea out.
They've been working in recent weeks on trying to get the Lebanese army involved in border clashes against Syria insurgents but the generals have said no. Its an interesting bit of arm chancing though.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/22/uk-denmark-election-idUKKBN0O71J220150522
Opinion polls show the centre-left government is heading for a heavy defeat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Danish_general_election,_2015
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/22/labour-party-tony-blair-problem-election#comment-52633794