politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marco Rubio is getting very close to Jeb Bush in the Republican nominee betting
While all the focus in the fight for the Republican nomination has been on the three non politician contenders – Trump, Fiorina and Carson – the big recent betting moves have been at the top of the card
And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game? 2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
Possible answers: 1) The Russians want a secure warm-water port at Tartus, more influence in the region via a puppet regime, and the relaxation of sanctions. 2) We want ... well, an end to IS, obviously. And for everyone to be jolly nice to one another.
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.
I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.
There's so many sides to this one - residents, tourists, black cabbies, minicabs and the upstarts.
As a resident I want a roadworthy car with a non-criminal driver and an approved meter. As a tourist I want the above plus a driver who knows where he's going and isn't going to spend hours stuck in traffic As a black cabbie who studied for 3 years and spent 30k on a car, I'd be pretty peeved if anyone with a smartphone can suddenly call themselves a cabbie. As an existing minicab I want my company to be better equipped to compete with the upstart. As the upstart I want to ignore all the rules, or pretend they don't apply to me. One upstart in particular is being particularly sh1tty about ignoring rules - in several cities and countries.
The specific proposals mentioned seem designed to attack the upstart but in completely the wrong way - by attacking the things that the residents and tourists WANT from them.
A better approach would be to require commercial licences for drivers, regular inspections of vehicles and public liability insurance from companies operating cars for hire, then let the market work things out.
Rubio would probably be the most electable and charismatic candidate the Republicans could pick however he is pro immigration unlike, say, Trump and Cruz and that hurts him with the base who seem to be in populist mode. Rubio would need to beat Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire to have a shot
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game? 2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
Possible answers: 1) The Russians want a secure warm-water port at Tartus, more influence in the region via a puppet regime, and the relaxation of sanctions. 2) We want ... well, an end to IS, obviously. And for everyone to be jolly nice to one another.
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.
I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.
He will ensure Assad remains in place and west will look like the useless dummies they are , once again. He is far too smart for the dullards we have in charge.
On topic, can we see some more money on Fiorina please. I want to lay her but no value at 14, was hoping she'd be into 7 or 8 by now.
Nomination looking likely to be between Bush and Rubio now - unless somehow Trump can stay the distance, unlikely though that might seem from this side of the Pond.
I'm afraid quasi-fascist scaremongering on 'security' won't be quite as effective when the British public's desire for war has been permanently dampened by one too many pointless foreign adventures. Especially as it will be made more and more clear to the public that Trident isn't really independent. Without an actual invasion of British territory it probably wouldn't have been been that effective then.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I'm afraid quasi-fascist scaremongering on 'security' won't be quite as effective when the British public's desire for war has been permanently dampened by one too many pointless foreign adventures. Especially as it will be made more and more clear to the public that Trident isn't really independent. Without an actual invasion of British territory it probably wouldn't have been been that effective then.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
False choice. Moving away from the US does not mean that Britain's defence policy has to mean hiding under a bush, or rolling out the red carpet to Hamas.
Against an increasingly confident Russia, a rising China and various assorted nutcases across the world, Security is increasingly relevant.
What a strange country we live in. A parent can beat their children for any reason whatsoever without the law's involvement but if they smoke in a car with someone under 18 they get fined.
The leader of the labour Party is castigated for saying that he wouldn't press the button that would release Trident because it's an action that would guarantee the world's destruction. We should feel safer having a leader who would press that button.....
...The time is out of joint. O cursèd spite,. That ever I was born to set it right!
On topic, can we see some more money on Fiorina please. I want to lay her but no value at 14, was hoping she'd be into 7 or 8 by now.
Nomination looking likely to be between Bush and Rubio now - unless somehow Trump can stay the distance, unlikely though that might seem from this side of the Pond.
After picking two losing moderates the GOP base seem to be in populist mood and Bush and Rubio may be too pro immigration. At the moment Trump still leads followed by Carson and Fiorina then Rubio and Bush with Cruz also closing in behind them
On topic, once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. Donald Trump looks impossible but Jeb Bush risks being impossible in a different way: too boring, no inspiring message.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
Has there been any opinion polling on this?
Call it an educated guess, but I think if asked 'do you feel worried by the Russians bombing jihadis' I'd feel quite comfortable betting a few quid on 'no' coming up quite a lot.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
On topic, once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. Donald Trump looks impossible but Jeb Bush risks being impossible in a different way: too boring, no inspiring message.
Have you taken into account Jeb's lack of name recognition?
And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game? 2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
Possible answers: 1) The Russians want a secure warm-water port at Tartus, more influence in the region via a puppet regime, and the relaxation of sanctions. 2) We want ... well, an end to IS, obviously. And for everyone to be jolly nice to one another.
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.
I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.
I think it's simpler than that. Thinking five or six moves ahead in international relations leaves too much to chance.
Putin is looking to knock out the remaining moderates to force the rest of the world to keep Assad in place as the lesser of the two evils in Syria. Ultimately, that will mean taking on IS as well but with Assad's assets unfrozen and with financial and military aid, that's achievable.
I'd regard any knock-on Islamic action in Russia as a feature rather than a bug. Putin has history in cracking down severely where necessary. An Islamic terrorist campaign would give him the pretext to do all he needs in that regard, including, perhaps, a state of emergency to remove (or suspend, for appearances' sake), remaining features of democracy in Russia.
I'm afraid quasi-fascist scaremongering on 'security' won't be quite as effective when the British public's desire for war has been permanently dampened by one too many pointless foreign adventures. Especially as it will be made more and more clear to the public that Trident isn't really independent. Without an actual invasion of British territory it probably wouldn't have been been that effective then.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
False choice. Moving away from the US does not mean that Britain's defence policy has to mean hiding under a bush, or rolling out the red carpet to Hamas.
Against an increasingly confident Russia, a rising China and various assorted nutcases across the world, Security is increasingly relevant.
Tory policy has been to make us less secure, not more so.
Nicky Morgan has become the first Cabinet minister to publicly state that she may enter the race to succeed David Cameron when he steps down. On the eve of the Conservative Party’s annual conference Mrs Morgan, the Education Secretary, said that she is contemplating standing as leader but that “a lot of it will depend on family”.
It came as it was claimed that Mr Cameron has told allies that he will stand down in the spring of 2019.
Nicky Morgan has become the first Cabinet minister to publicly state that she may enter the race to succeed David Cameron when he steps down. On the eve of the Conservative Party’s annual conference Mrs Morgan, the Education Secretary, said that she is contemplating standing as leader but that “a lot of it will depend on family”.
It came as it was claimed that Mr Cameron has told allies that he will stand down in the spring of 2019.
And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game? 2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
Possible answers: 1) The Russians want a secure warm-water port at Tartus, more influence in the region via a puppet regime, and the relaxation of sanctions. 2) We want ... well, an end to IS, obviously. And for everyone to be jolly nice to one another.
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.
I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.
That's probably true. Putin needs a divided Europe so Russia - with its oil and gas exports - has lots of client states, none of which have the power to be able to stand up to him.
Migrants fleeing to Europe weakens Europe and the EU, and therefore strengthens Putin's hand.
Destabilising the Middle East therefore produces multiple positives for Putin: it lowers oil supply from the region, increasing prices, and it destabilises Europe.
Of course the neocon establishment is desperately trying to spin the distastrous state of affairs, where current enemy Eurasia, I mean Russia, are taking on the most hated bunch of fundamentalist terrorists active in the world today, with this 'moderates' nonsense, but if you are really swallowing the mental gymnastics involved you really are lost as critical thinkers, I afraid.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
Has there been any opinion polling on this?
Call it an educated guess, but I think if asked 'do you feel worried by the Russians bombing jihadis' I'd feel quite comfortable betting a few quid on 'no' coming up quite a lot.
Ah, I see. It was one of those "most people" that meant "I".
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
Has there been any opinion polling on this?
Call it an educated guess, but I think if asked 'do you feel worried by the Russians bombing jihadis' I'd feel quite comfortable betting a few quid on 'no' coming up quite a lot.
Ah, I see. It was one of those "most people" that meant "I".
I'm afraid quasi-fascist scaremongering on 'security' won't be quite as effective when the British public's desire for war has been permanently dampened by one too many pointless foreign adventures. Especially as it will be made more and more clear to the public that Trident isn't really independent. Without an actual invasion of British territory it probably wouldn't have been been that effective then.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
False choice. Moving away from the US does not mean that Britain's defence policy has to mean hiding under a bush, or rolling out the red carpet to Hamas.
Against an increasingly confident Russia, a rising China and various assorted nutcases across the world, Security is increasingly relevant.
Tory policy has been to make us less secure, not more so.
To an extent I would agree. Big changes need to be made to Britain's defence and foreign policies.
However, Labour's policies - to the extent that they can be determined - would be far, far worse.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
Has there been any opinion polling on this?
Call it an educated guess, but I think if asked 'do you feel worried by the Russians bombing jihadis' I'd feel quite comfortable betting a few quid on 'no' coming up quite a lot.
Ah, I see. It was one of those "most people" that meant "I".
Fancy a bet if it does come up?
I have no idea on this one. Russia is strongly disliked by most British people (except by Kippers who admire Putin's militarist authoritarianism and by Corbynistas who still mourn the fall of the Berlin Wall). ISIS are loathed still more. Will the public on balance prefer to see ISIS attacked or will it distrust Vladimir Putin's motives? Probably both - I'd expect a high "Don't know" result.
And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game? 2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
Possible answers: 1) The Russians want a secure warm-water port at Tartus, more influence in the region via a puppet regime, and the relaxation of sanctions. 2) We want ... well, an end to IS, obviously. And for everyone to be jolly nice to one another.
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.
I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.
I think it's simpler than that. Thinking five or six moves ahead in international relations leaves too much to chance.
Putin is looking to knock out the remaining moderates to force the rest of the world to keep Assad in place as the lesser of the two evils in Syria. Ultimately, that will mean taking on IS as well but with Assad's assets unfrozen and with financial and military aid, that's achievable.
I'd regard any knock-on Islamic action in Russia as a feature rather than a bug. Putin has history in cracking down severely where necessary. An Islamic terrorist campaign would give him the pretext to do all he needs in that regard, including, perhaps, a state of emergency to remove (or suspend, for appearances' sake), remaining features of democracy in Russia.
I don't think we can underestimate Putin's desire to get sanctions against Russia lifted.
I'm afraid quasi-fascist scaremongering on 'security' won't be quite as effective when the British public's desire for war has been permanently dampened by one too many pointless foreign adventures. Especially as it will be made more and more clear to the public that Trident isn't really independent. Without an actual invasion of British territory it probably wouldn't have been been that effective then.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
False choice. Moving away from the US does not mean that Britain's defence policy has to mean hiding under a bush, or rolling out the red carpet to Hamas.
Against an increasingly confident Russia, a rising China and various assorted nutcases across the world, Security is increasingly relevant.
Tory policy has been to make us less secure, not more so.
To an extent I would agree. Big changes need to be made to Britain's defence and foreign policies.
However, Labour's policies - to the extent that they can be determined - would be far, far worse.
I'm glad we can find some common ground I'm trying to be constructive these days, life's too short. However my argument would be that Trident does nothing for our security at all. (Of course it is still labour policy to keep this ridiculous white elephant). And a policy where we don't follow the U.S. into every one of their ill-fated geopolitical games would make us infinitely more secure. labour policy will be very pro-armed forces - give them the right tools to face the genuine threats we do face and don't get involved in any more unnecessary wars where our soldiers get killed for spurious purposes.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
I'm afraid quasi-fascist scaremongering on 'security' won't be quite as effective when the British public's desire for war has been permanently dampened by one too many pointless foreign adventures. Especially as it will be made more and more clear to the public that Trident isn't really independent. Without an actual invasion of British territory it probably wouldn't have been been that effective then.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
False choice. Moving away from the US does not mean that Britain's defence policy has to mean hiding under a bush, or rolling out the red carpet to Hamas.
Against an increasingly confident Russia, a rising China and various assorted nutcases across the world, Security is increasingly relevant.
Tory policy has been to make us less secure, not more so.
To an extent I would agree. Big changes need to be made to Britain's defence and foreign policies.
However, Labour's policies - to the extent that they can be determined - would be far, far worse.
I'm glad we can find some common ground I'm trying to be constructive these days, life's too short. However my argument would be that Trident does nothing for our security at all. (Of course it is still labour policy to keep this ridiculous white elephant). And a policy where we don't follow the U.S. into every one of their ill-fated geopolitical games would make us infinitely more secure. labour policy will be very pro-armed forces - give them the right tools to face the genuine threats we do face and don't get involved in any more unnecessary wars where our soldiers get killed for spurious purposes.
"I'm trying to be constructive these days"
Then try posting constructively. Going around calling everyone you disagree with neocons isn't exactly constructive.
As for: "labour policy will be very pro-armed forces": Yes, I agree. If Corbyn's past words are anything to go by, he will be very pro- other countries' armed forces.
I ask you the question I asked you at the end of the last thread: what so you see as the UK's desired end-game in Syria, and how do you propose we get there?
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
Yes there is. It's a binary choice between the authoritarian but secular, pluralistic Assad government and genocidal, fascist, fundamentalist jihadis. If you look at it without 'grand game' neocon goggles it's a no-brainer.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
Yes there is. It's a binary choice between the authoritarian but secular, pluralistic Assad government and genocidal, fascist, fundamentalist jihadis. If you look at it without 'grand game' neocon goggles it's a no-brainer.
So who are Putin's forces currently bombing?
Ironically, it's neoCons who are most prone to looking at the world through binary goggles.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
Yes there is. It's a binary choice between the authoritarian but secular, pluralistic Assad government and genocidal, fascist, fundamentalist jihadis. If you look at it without 'grand game' neocon goggles it's a no-brainer.
I doubt "most people" even know what those goggles are, let alone wear them.
And in other news, looks like the Ruskies have been bombing the US-backed rebels rather than ISIS. "Urgent Talks" to happen between the two superpowers today.
Two questions we need to ask:
1) What do the Russians want out of this? What is their end game? 2) What do we want out of this? What is our end game?
It seems to me that Russian aims are far more focussed and achievable than ours.
Also: Russia will not want to inflame the situation with Islamic nutters too much. It has had massive problem in its mainly-Muslim regions (e.g. Chechnya), and even the US's failure in Afghanistan will not ease the Russian military's memory of their embarrassment in that same country twenty years earlier. Russia will be well aware - more than us - that the Muslim fighter is fanatical in the extreme, and all too willing to export that fanatacism to countries that attack it.
Expect Russia to do the minimum possible to achieve their aims, whilst letting others do the hard and really risky graft against IS.
I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.
I think it's simpler than that. Thinking five or six moves ahead in international relations leaves too much to chance.
Putin is looking to knock out the remaining moderates to force the rest of the world to keep Assad in place as the lesser of the two evils in Syria. Ultimately, that will mean taking on IS as well but with Assad's assets unfrozen and with financial and military aid, that's achievable.
I'd regard any knock-on Islamic action in Russia as a feature rather than a bug. Putin has history in cracking down severely where necessary. An Islamic terrorist campaign would give him the pretext to do all he needs in that regard, including, perhaps, a state of emergency to remove (or suspend, for appearances' sake), remaining features of democracy in Russia.
I don't think we can underestimate Putin's desire to get sanctions against Russia lifted.
Fair point but a different one. While it's engaged on an expansionist drive on cultural / historic reasoning, they have to stay.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
He's fine to give intellectual credibility but too old to front a campaign - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was, and I shouldn't think most people under 40 will have a clue. Outers desperately need a well-known current politician to lead them who isn't Farage (who is effective but defines Out too narrowly as =UKIP). Boris seems the only plausible possibility that might give them a shot.
A senior SNP MSP said yesterday that “there will be more Michelle Thomsons”, claiming that checks on general election candidates had been “hurried, shambolic and perfunctory”.
An SNP MSP warned: “There are going to be more of these because the vetting process was so poor. I’m not surprised the leadership had no idea.”
Potential candidates were asked to detail anything in their lives that might cause a problem. But, according to the MSP: “Candidates could put down what they liked, no one seemed to have the time to check them all. Things were missed.”
I don't think we can underestimate Putin's desire to get sanctions against Russia lifted.
Fair point but a different one. While it's engaged on an expansionist drive on cultural / historic reasoning, they have to stay.
Russia will be trying to pretend that they are fighting against ISIS, rather than for Assad. They will then say that in order to do this effectively, they will need sanctions lifting.
For many in the west that will be a persuasive argument even if it is utterly bogus.
Probably for the first time ever, I slightly agree with Mr Wisemann. When Al Queda and its affiliates are regarded as 'moderates' something is very peculiar.
If Putin wants to bomb them, why should the West complain?
Alawites may be a type of Shia but they're definitely not IS. Or am I being too simplistic? Very likely if Mr Wisemann is on the same side.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
Yes there is. It's a binary choice between the authoritarian but secular, pluralistic Assad government and genocidal, fascist, fundamentalist jihadis. If you look at it without 'grand game' neocon goggles it's a no-brainer.
IIRC the original anti-Assad forces were also secular. It was only later, although not, in some cases a lot later, that “jihadis’ joined the fray. And if I’m not mistaken some of them are more intersted in fighting each other than fighting Assad. So to say there isn’t a right side depends on how you feel about things.
Mr. Palmer, Boris has zero credibility on this, due to his demented position, stated earlier this year (or late 2014) that we should vote No, and then use that as leverage to get a better deal instead of respecting the democratic will of the people.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
Yes there is. It's a binary choice between the authoritarian but secular, pluralistic Assad government and genocidal, fascist, fundamentalist jihadis. If you look at it without 'grand game' neocon goggles it's a no-brainer.
So who are Putin's forces currently bombing?
Ironically, it's neoCons who are most prone to looking at the world through binary goggles.
They are bombing jihadis. The 'moderates' are a convenient fiction to allow the neocons to argue that black is white and our enemy is still Eurasia.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
@camusson: (2/2) Excl revelations in Michelle Thomson saga: "Lawyers for Indy" solicitor on Law Soc committee dealing with case http://t.co/cAs346swMn
So what your saying is that all the other solicitors on the panel were Unionists and they came up with a decision which was detrimental to someone who was later a declared independence supporter.
As for rentoul's glib comment about protests, the Russians have been called in for assistance by the sovereign government of the country, a very different activity to unilateral military adventurism of the sort that has been so reckless and commonplace by the transatlantic neocon establishment.
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
I had to think for a moment to remember who he was
"Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system."
I agree which is why the election of Corbyn was so important. For the first time the question of Trident is going to become a national debate. That several shadow cabinet ministers are in favour doesn't matter a jot. This goes to the heart of progressive politics. Anyone watching the rather pathetic figure of Lord Falconer on Newsnight will know the writing's on the wall.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
Yes there is. It's a binary choice between the authoritarian but secular, pluralistic Assad government and genocidal, fascist, fundamentalist jihadis. If you look at it without 'grand game' neocon goggles it's a no-brainer.
Well quite, if you think Assad is "right" and no more than "authoritarian" you are wearing some goggles yourself. He may well be the least worst option at the moment, but of course we should reserve the right to stab him in tha back later. At least the Russians might go after IS properly rather than ponce about with both hands tied behind their back.
Loving seeing the Saudis squeal whilst their evil proxies in Syria and Yemen face a battering, their own forces get bogged down against the brave Houthis, and disquiet at home is on the rise. Sooner we can see that vile country fall, the better.
@Jake_Wilde: OK this @JournoStephen 's fault but I'm going to tweet out some old Tory election posters and someone better tell me they wouldn't work now.
twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
And right on cue Russia gets involved in the Syrian conflict!
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
The thing is most people think Russia are on the right side in Syria. Doesn't really work, does it.
I would guess that "most people" would say that there isn't a right side in the Syrian civil war.
Yes there is. It's a binary choice between the authoritarian but secular, pluralistic Assad government and genocidal, fascist, fundamentalist jihadis. If you look at it without 'grand game' neocon goggles it's a no-brainer.
So who are Putin's forces currently bombing?
Ironically, it's neoCons who are most prone to looking at the world through binary goggles.
They are bombing jihadis. The 'moderates' are a convenient fiction to allow the neocons to argue that black is white and our enemy is still Eurasia.
Ah, your 'constructive' approach once again. Not all the fighters are Jihadis, and not by a long shot. Although the number of non-Jihadi fighters has decreased massively since Miliband's treachery allowed ISIS to grow and gain territory in both Syria and Iraq.
They jihadis were the key from the beginning. The 'moderates' have been a marginal joke from the start, a convenient fiction. Miliband saved us from the ignominy of supporting Isis and al-Nusra more than we already have.
Loving seeing the Saudis squeal whilst their evil proxies in Syria and Yemen face a battering, their own forces get bogged down against the brave Houthis, and disquiet at home is on the rise. Sooner we can see that vile country fall, the better.
Given that the local religion is strongly against any infidel, what kind of regime is likely to replace the House of Saud if it fell?
I suspect the answer is the kind of regime which would make you long for teh return of teh House of Saud..
Mr. Wisemann, your definition of 'loony right' appears to include most of the Shadow Cabinet.
Forget right or left.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
It's not a necessary weapon system.
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
As a mere adjunct of the U.S. deterrent it does no such thing. There is no conceivable scenario where the U.S. would allow us to use it if they weren't going to use theirs. It's another emperor-with-no-clothes fiction that achieves nothing except boost the transatlantic neocon establishment and the coffers of Lockheed Martin.
Presumably anyone calling for the removal of Trident, is also expecting us to leave NATO, since we would remain a likely nuclear target for any 'enemy' whilst still hosting joint US/NATO facilities.
Loving seeing the Saudis squeal whilst their evil proxies in Syria and Yemen face a battering, their own forces get bogged down against the brave Houthis, and disquiet at home is on the rise. Sooner we can see that vile country fall, the better.
. Again - shrugs.
I guess one thing off the menu is a commons vote on air strikes. We can wash or hands.
No whining when pictures of dead kids turn up on the news though - which they will. Then just wait for the backlash when Assad is back in full control - ouch - the prisons will be fuller than a soup kitchen at the Hungarian border. Enjoy the ride everyone..
The Eurosceptic peer said he has taken the role as president of the Conservatives for Britain and will lead a cross-party exit movement ahead of the EU referendum, due to take place by the end of next year.
I had to think for a moment to remember who he was
Loving seeing the Saudis squeal whilst their evil proxies in Syria and Yemen face a battering, their own forces get bogged down against the brave Houthis, and disquiet at home is on the rise. Sooner we can see that vile country fall, the better.
Given that the local religion is strongly against any infidel, what kind of regime is likely to replace the House of Saud if it fell?
I suspect the answer is the kind of regime which would make you long for teh return of teh House of Saud..
the oppressed Shia minority are much more moderate and their area contains most of the oilfields. Let them have their own state there, deal with them, and let the Wahhabi nutters run their own horrible state without the power to spread their poison to the rest of the eastern hemisphere.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
Russian strategy doesn't change.
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
Lots of Lefties out today, with the taste of Putin in their mouths. It's like the Eighties all over again.
I think Rubio is worth a punt - I put down a few quid last week in order to help me move a bit further to all green on GOP. I'm discounting Trump or Carson.
Presumably anyone calling for the removal of Trident, is also expecting us to leave NATO, since we would remain a likely nuclear target for any 'enemy' whilst still hosting joint US/NATO facilities.
There are plenty of nato members with no nuclear weapons.
On Syria, I think Bluerog's analysis is too complicated. Putin simply wants to prove he's a good ally. Ally with him and he sticks to you through thick and thin, regardless of your revolting atrocities, and if necessary intervenes to bomb your opponents. Ally with the West and who knows what they'll do, if anything? Perhaps they'll even conspire to bring you down when they find a better option (cf. Gaddafi, who we were intermittently friendly with when he agreed to give up WMD).
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
And your analysis is far too simple and one-dimensional. Why would Putin ally himself with Assad in the first place? What does he want out of this? What is his end-game?
Russian strategy doesn't change.
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
Is it not as simple as the port access Syria has ?
Mr. Wisemann, your definition of 'loony right' appears to include most of the Shadow Cabinet.
Forget right or left.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
It's not a necessary weapon system.
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
It's not about "being used". That's for naive nutters (on both sides).
Trident fails because it is : -
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
2. Not Fit For Purpose. The Trident system (where we can't even fill a single boat with missiles and have quite limited Warheads deployed at any time) does not prrovide MAD, it would barely be a bloody nose for the Great Bear. It does not qualify as a deterrent.
So it isn't needed and doesn't work. £100bn for something that isn't needed and doesn't work is absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. Wisemann, your definition of 'loony right' appears to include most of the Shadow Cabinet.
Forget right or left.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
It's not a necessary weapon system.
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
As a mere adjunct of the U.S. deterrent it does no such thing. There is no conceivable scenario where the U.S. would allow us to use it if they weren't going to use theirs. It's another emperor-with-no-clothes fiction that achieves nothing except boost the transatlantic neocon establishment and the coffers of Lockheed Martin.
Presumably anyone calling for the removal of Trident, is also expecting us to leave NATO, since we would remain a likely nuclear target for any 'enemy' whilst still hosting joint US/NATO facilities.
There are plenty of nato members with no nuclear weapons.
Who all operate under the umbrella of US weapons, allow their storage within their territory, and in many cases have trained to use them. They're all targets.
Whilst the UK hosts the BMEWS system, and joint US/NATO communications and air force facilities, we most definitely remain on the receiving end of megatons of canned sunshine.
Comments
FPT I had a thought this morning about this. We all know that Putin is devious in the extreme and plays multi layered games. How about this bombing campaign has another function - to further destabilise the region and to stimulate even more people to leave Syria and look for refuge in the EU. This puts even more strain on the economic and political establishment in the EU, foments internal dispute, and diverts attention away from Ukraine.
As a resident I want a roadworthy car with a non-criminal driver and an approved meter.
As a tourist I want the above plus a driver who knows where he's going and isn't going to spend hours stuck in traffic
As a black cabbie who studied for 3 years and spent 30k on a car, I'd be pretty peeved if anyone with a smartphone can suddenly call themselves a cabbie.
As an existing minicab I want my company to be better equipped to compete with the upstart.
As the upstart I want to ignore all the rules, or pretend they don't apply to me. One upstart in particular is being particularly sh1tty about ignoring rules - in several cities and countries.
The specific proposals mentioned seem designed to attack the upstart but in completely the wrong way - by attacking the things that the residents and tourists WANT from them.
A better approach would be to require commercial licences for drivers, regular inspections of vehicles and public liability insurance from companies operating cars for hire, then let the market work things out.
https://twitter.com/jake_wilde/status/649359215446900736
I imagine the Tories will push a Trident vote at the earliest opportunity. Mr Woodcock from Barrow will no doubt be interested in the official Labour view on the subject.
A few elections ago I had Rubio at 50/1 (forget whether that was to win or just become the Republican candidate).
Nomination looking likely to be between Bush and Rubio now - unless somehow Trump can stay the distance, unlikely though that might seem from this side of the Pond.
I think the loony right are overestimating the British public's desire to be Airstrip One.
It has nothing to do with turnout. They are not people who are registered but do not vote.
It is more to do with people who do NOT register in the first place.
Against an increasingly confident Russia, a rising China and various assorted nutcases across the world, Security is increasingly relevant.
Rather ironically, 2016 could be something of a mirror-image to 1992.
*Though Samantha Cameron's take would also be worth hearing.
The leader of the labour Party is castigated for saying that he wouldn't press the button that would release Trident because it's an action that would guarantee the world's destruction. We should feel safer having a leader who would press that button.....
...The time is out of joint. O cursèd spite,. That ever I was born to set it right!
Average Tory poll lead over Labour since GE2015
GE - Farron election - 7 polls - 9%
Farron election - Corbyn election - 7 polls - 9%
Corbyn election - Now - 6 polls - 7.5%
I'd feel quite comfortable betting a few quid on 'no' coming up quite a lot.
Putin is looking to knock out the remaining moderates to force the rest of the world to keep Assad in place as the lesser of the two evils in Syria. Ultimately, that will mean taking on IS as well but with Assad's assets unfrozen and with financial and military aid, that's achievable.
I'd regard any knock-on Islamic action in Russia as a feature rather than a bug. Putin has history in cracking down severely where necessary. An Islamic terrorist campaign would give him the pretext to do all he needs in that regard, including, perhaps, a state of emergency to remove (or suspend, for appearances' sake), remaining features of democracy in Russia.
chortle
Migrants fleeing to Europe weakens Europe and the EU, and therefore strengthens Putin's hand.
Destabilising the Middle East therefore produces multiple positives for Putin: it lowers oil supply from the region, increasing prices, and it destabilises Europe.
In politics today, it seems ambition and non-entity status increasingly go hand in hand
However, Labour's policies - to the extent that they can be determined - would be far, far worse.
However my argument would be that Trident does nothing for our security at all. (Of course it is still labour policy to keep this ridiculous white elephant). And a policy where we don't follow the U.S. into every one of their ill-fated geopolitical games would make us infinitely more secure.
labour policy will be very pro-armed forces - give them the right tools to face the genuine threats we do face and don't get involved in any more unnecessary wars where our soldiers get killed for spurious purposes.
Then try posting constructively. Going around calling everyone you disagree with neocons isn't exactly constructive.
As for: "labour policy will be very pro-armed forces": Yes, I agree. If Corbyn's past words are anything to go by, he will be very pro- other countries' armed forces.
I ask you the question I asked you at the end of the last thread: what so you see as the UK's desired end-game in Syria, and how do you propose we get there?
All points to the Tories being 10-12% clear at a real poll.
The 'popular' left are always overstated.
Splitters!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34409264
Ironically, it's neoCons who are most prone to looking at the world through binary goggles.
On Nicky Morgan: the Conservative Andy Burnham?
I doubt "most people" even know what those goggles are, let alone wear them.
Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system.
oh pull the other one
For many in the west that will be a persuasive argument even if it is utterly bogus.
If Putin wants to bomb them, why should the West complain?
Alawites may be a type of Shia but they're definitely not IS. Or am I being too simplistic? Very likely if Mr Wisemann is on the same side.
So to say there isn’t a right side depends on how you feel about things.
I'm not recommending that we adopt Putin's policy - a policy that we will be supportive without direct intervention and conditional on human rights is consistent and quite possibly a better one. But for embattled dictators, Putin's simple approach has obvious appeal.
Sounds like a Unionist plot to me.
Really Nick?
"Only a complete loony could possibly believe that Trident is a necessary weapon system."
I agree which is why the election of Corbyn was so important. For the first time the question of Trident is going to become a national debate. That several shadow cabinet ministers are in favour doesn't matter a jot. This goes to the heart of progressive politics. Anyone watching the rather pathetic figure of Lord Falconer on Newsnight will know the writing's on the wall.
I'm holding fire on my (slight) negative position to Bush. He's got staying power but not the polling at the moment.
Other than that it's a case of identifying no hopers.
Pataki, Graham, Gilmore, Jindal, Paul, Santorum, Huckabee.
Christie and Cruz probably but still got one eye. Kasich similarly (a downgrade on my previous position).
It's a necessary strategic defence initative
Trident will probably never be used. But our opponents don't definitely know that we probably won't use it.
Hence the danger of Corbyn's statement: in removing uncertainty the only think he achieves is to make the world a more dangerous place
I suspect the answer is the kind of regime which would make you long for teh return of teh House of Saud..
It's another emperor-with-no-clothes fiction that achieves nothing except boost the transatlantic neocon establishment and the coffers of Lockheed Martin.
" - I had to think for a moment to remember who he was,"
Ex father-in-law of a once innovative ad man. Can't think of any other claim to fame
Again - shrugs.
I guess one thing off the menu is a commons vote on air strikes. We can wash or hands.
No whining when pictures of dead kids turn up on the news though - which they will. Then just wait for the backlash when Assad is back in full control - ouch - the prisons will be fuller than a soup kitchen at the Hungarian border. Enjoy the ride everyone..
Nick who?
She wants a buffer of compliant and/or destabilised countries around her borders. Syria fits reasonably well there with the added bonus of military bases.
It might also send a signal to Turkey that the Turks best defence is served by Russia and not NATO - especially as Turkish Accession to the EU now seems less likely than ever.
'Hugely unscientific interpretations:'
So why bother posting it or is it your comfort blanket ?
Trident fails because it is : -
1. Redundant. The American nuclear programme provides the UK with MAD and a deterrent.
2. Not Fit For Purpose. The Trident system (where we can't even fill a single boat with missiles and have quite limited Warheads deployed at any time) does not prrovide MAD, it would barely be a bloody nose for the Great Bear. It does not qualify as a deterrent.
So it isn't needed and doesn't work. £100bn for something that isn't needed and doesn't work is absolutely ridiculous.
Whilst the UK hosts the BMEWS system, and joint US/NATO communications and air force facilities, we most definitely remain on the receiving end of megatons of canned sunshine.
@MSmithsonPB
Nicky Morgan says it's time for another woman CON leader & tells Speccie that she'll stand pic.twitter.com/0OfU4TxV0E"
Surely a bonus to actualyl standing...