politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BREAKING: Trump orders cruise missile attack on Syria followin

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BREAKING: Trump orders cruise missile attack on Syria following the chemical weapon attack

Trump said:

Read the full story here

PClipp

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

IanB2

Second

Charles

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

IanB2

Aylesbury Vale - Harry correctly forecast the LibDem gain, but was way too cautious in predicting the vote share! Actual result:

Elmhurst (Aylesbury Vale) result:
LDEM: 63.5% (+37.9)
LAB: 12.2% (-10.0)
CON: 11.9% (-9.3)
UKIP: 9.0% (-14.4)
GRN: 3.5% (-4.2)

old_labour

6th April 1917- US declares war on Germany

6th April 2017- US launches missile strikes on Syria

notme

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

Without Ed Miliband agreeing to support a government vote for intervention if six points are met, and then reneging at the last moment even when those points are met because it created an opportunity to embarrass the prime minister, possibly a better response.

CarlottaVance

notme said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

Without Ed Miliband agreeing to support a government vote for intervention if six points are met, and then reneging at the last moment even when those points are met because it created an opportunity to embarrass the prime minister, possibly a better response.

Quite. Interested to see how Mr Miliband signals his virtue today....

AlastairMeeks

What's the aim? What's the plan?

nunu

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

Nigelb

AlastairMeeks said:

What's the aim? What's the plan?

The stated aim is to deter any further use of chemical weapons; limited to that, it may well succeed.
What plan ?

The only realistic plan for Syria is a militarily enforced 'safe zone'. Which might have worked four or five years ago.

JosiasJessop

In the 1980s the west stood back as Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, first against the Iranians, and then against civilians in his own country. In fact, we continued to support him.

That decision came back and bit us just a few years later. Would the world be a more stable place now if we'd withdrawn all support for, or even punished, Hussein after the Halabja attack in 1988?

In 2013 we stood back as Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Since then, the situation in Syria and the region has worsened massively. There was a narrow window of opportunity that has now evaporated.

A decision not to act is as much a decision as a decision to act. Those who argued against the strikes against Assad in 2013 need to defend that decision in the light of everything that has occurred since.

JackW

IanB2 said:

Aylesbury Vale - Harry correctly forecast the LibDem gain, but was way too cautious in predicting the vote share! Actual result:

Elmhurst (Aylesbury Vale) result:
LDEM: 63.5% (+37.9)
LAB: 12.2% (-10.0)
CON: 11.9% (-9.3)
UKIP: 9.0% (-14.4)
GRN: 3.5% (-4.2)

Did Harry forecast no votes for the Greens ?

An Aylesbury Duck ....

Quack Quack ....

JosiasJessop

nunu said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

That might cause problems with the Russian forces at Khmeimim (though according to Wiki that is actually technically a Russian air base).

JackW

BTW ....

The JackW Committee for Public Morality in Broadcasting raised an eyebrow when it noted one of the thread leaders yesterday was on Political Betting and vice.

We can but recall those salad days of PB when it was in black and white and when OGH visiting London didn't involve having tea and honey(traps) with the Russian embassy.

JosiasJessop

It's interesting that this attack has occurred immediately after Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

North Korea must be a bit more worried this morning.

Casino_Royale

This seems a necessary response to me.

Casino_Royale

JosiasJessop said:

It's interesting that this attack has occurred immediately after Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

North Korea must be a bit more worried this morning.

I hope so.

I think Trump wants to send a clear message to rogue states and leaders: I am not Obama.

rkrkrk

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's interesting that this attack has occurred immediately after Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

North Korea must be a bit more worried this morning.

I hope so.

I think Trump wants to send a clear message to rogue states and leaders: I am not Obama.

A) not convinced a worried North Korea is ideal.

B...) Trump has changed his mind overnight on Assad. Maybe he's made the right decision this time... I've no idea. But this clearly isn't part of a planned strategy.

CarlottaVance

MPs who voted against Syria action in 2013:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/mps-who-voted-against-syria-motion-full-list

MonikerDiCanio

Draft dodger Don's blundered.

CarlottaVance

The UK government says it "fully supports" the US missile strike against an air base in Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack.

A No 10 spokeswoman said: "We believe [it] was an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack launched by the Syrian regime, and is intended to deter further attacks."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39524685?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter

logical_song

UKIP lose both defences, one to LibDem, one to Con.
Plus a LibDem hold and Con hold.

LibDems achieve greatest percentage vote rise in all four contests.

Walcot (Bath & North East Somerset) result:
LDEM: 48.6% (+11.2)
GRN: 22.2% (+0.4)
CON: 22.0% (-0.5)
LAB: 7.2% (-7.4)

Liberal Democrat HOLD Walcot (Bath & North East Somerset).

Elmhurst (Aylesbury Vale) result:
LDEM: 63.5% (+37.9)
LAB: 12.2% (-10.0)
CON: 11.9% (-9.3)
UKIP: 9.0% (-14.4)
GRN: 3.5% (-4.2)

Liberal Democrat GAIN Elmhurst (Aylesbury Vale) from UKIP.

Hipperholme & Lightcliffe (Calderdale) result:
CON: 60.3% (-4.3)
LDEM: 17.1% (+6.8)
LAB: 16.5% (-0.5)
GRN: 6.1% (-2.0)

Conservative HOLD Hipperholme & Lightcliffe (Calderdale).

St James (Tendring) result:
CON: 47.9% (+12.7)
UKIP: 22.5% (-16.3)
LAB: 15.0% (-1.0)
LDEM: 12.8% (+12.8)
GRN: 1.9% (+1.9)

Conservative GAIN St James (Tendring) from UKIP.

OldKingCole

Do we know that the base the Americans attacked was the one from which the chemical weapons attack was launched?

DavidL

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

Essexit

notme said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

Without Ed Miliband agreeing to support a government vote for intervention if six points are met, and then reneging at the last moment even when those points are met because it created an opportunity to embarrass the prime minister, possibly a better response.

Agreed. Ironic that Miliband was so ineffective as opposition leader, but the one big thing he achieved may have cost thousands of lives.

DavidL

OldKingCole said:

Do we know that the base the Americans attacked was the one from which the chemical weapons attack was launched?

Yes, or at least we know that the US are claiming to have tracked the flights of the planes responsible from that airfield and back again. The tracking is on the BBC website.

Edit. See at 5.21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-39521332

Fat_Steve

JackW said:

BTW ....

The JackW Committee for Public Morality in Broadcasting raised an eyebrow when it noted one of the thread leaders yesterday was on Political Betting and vice.

We can but recall those salad days of PB when it was in black and white and when OGH visiting London didn't involve having tea and honey(traps) with the Russian embassy.

Indeed. And now there are podcasts and speech and iI don't know what. I can remember when the site didn't have sound, but employed a pianist to provide atmospheric musical accompaniment

Casino_Royale

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's interesting that this attack has occurred immediately after Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

North Korea must be a bit more worried this morning.

I hope so.

I think Trump wants to send a clear message to rogue states and leaders: I am not Obama.

A) not convinced a worried North Korea is ideal.

B...) Trump has changed his mind overnight on Assad. Maybe he's made the right decision this time... I've no idea. But this clearly isn't part of a planned strategy.

North Korea is developing a long range strategic missile capability, and probably already has a couple of nuclear weapons. Doing nothing and hoping it goes away is not an option.

A targeted response to deter further chemical attacks is a good thing, in my view.

JosiasJessop

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

ThreeQuidder

Essexit said:

notme said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

Without Ed Miliband agreeing to support a government vote for intervention if six points are met, and then reneging at the last moment even when those points are met because it created an opportunity to embarrass the prime minister, possibly a better response.

Agreed. Ironic that Miliband was so ineffective as opposition leader, but the one big thing he achieved may have cost thousands of lives.

Yes, that moment was disqualifying in my eyes: nobody who is fit for office would put embarrassing his political opponents so high up his priority list.

Mortimer

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

Quite. I am impressed by Trump's stance on this. Military action is a last resort; but when it is necessary red lines need to be enforced, swiftly and overwhelmingly.

rkrkrk

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

If the security council is farcical... Surely that is the fault of the members?
The UN has no magical power or ability to make Russia and US agree on Syria.

I think a better judge of UN is conflicts where the great powers aren't all that interested. Their record there isn't great either mind...

tlg86

I appreciate that this is of very little importance given what's been going on in Syria, but I wonder, if Russia keeps up its support for a regime that's using chemical weapons, at what point do we boycott the 2018 World Cup?

SimonStClare

Morning all.

Trump has sent a clear message, the use of banned chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

It will be interesting to see how the UK media responds to this and whether those that last week were condemning the Syrian President for using Nerve Agent Sarin against civilians, can bring themselves to praise a US president for his actions today.

Jonathan

There is a very, very cynical interpretation of events in Syria. Distance between the US and Russia is convenient right now. I don't want to believe it.

DavidL

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

I agree with all of that. But the UN is diminished by this action. It is a part of the collateral damage. Interesting this comes the day after the side lining of Steve Bannon. I think relations with Russia are going to have a very different tone going forward.

Pagan

The strike to me seems appropriate. Trump has signalled that if you use chemicals we will act in a way that has shown that he will keep to that but without sabre rattling in as much as Assad must now wonder if he does it again whether the response will escalate

DavidL

tlg86 said:

I appreciate that this is of very little importance given what's been going on in Syria, but I wonder, if Russia keeps up its support for a regime that's using chemical weapons, at what point do we boycott the 2018 World Cup?

Scotland is already ahead of the game in this respect. As you would expect from Nicola of course.

JosiasJessop

SimonStClare said:

Morning all.

Trump has sent a clear message, the use of banned chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

It will be interesting to see how the UK media responds to this and whether those that last week were condemning the Syrian President for using Nerve Agent Sarin against civilians, can bring themselves to praise a US president for his actions today.

I'm not exactly known as a fan of Trump (*), but I think this action was necessary. Unfortunately it was necessary four years ago.

(*) I have praised his talk about infrastructure, and what's come out about his plans seems interesting.

ThomasNashe

tlg86 said:

I appreciate that this is of very little importance given what's been going on in Syria, but I wonder, if Russia keeps up its support for a regime that's using chemical weapons, at what point do we boycott the 2018 World Cup?

Maybe the England team will show its disapproval by returning home from it at the earliest opportunity?

GeoffM

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

I agree with all of that. But the UN is diminished by this action. It is a part of the collateral damage. Interesting this comes the day after the side lining of Steve Bannon. I think relations with Russia are going to have a very different tone going forward.

Interesting that you think Steve Bannon was sidelined. He's still eligible to attend the meeting - just not as a permanent member, and he did in fact attend the first meeting after what was incorrectly spun by the Left as his removal.

Casino_Royale

Jonathan said:

There is a very, very cynical interpretation of events in Syria. Distance between the US and Russia is convenient right now. I don't want to believe it.

To what end would that be, though?

rkrkrk

tlg86 said:

I appreciate that this is of very little importance given what's been going on in Syria, but I wonder, if Russia keeps up its support for a regime that's using chemical weapons, at what point do we boycott the 2018 World Cup?

Good question. Who might join such a boycott?
My sense is we would need Russia to actually do something bad themselves rather than just support Assad... But it could definitely happen.

rcs1000

GeoffM said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

I agree with all of that. But the UN is diminished by this action. It is a part of the collateral damage. Interesting this comes the day after the side lining of Steve Bannon. I think relations with Russia are going to have a very different tone going forward.

Interesting that you think Steve Bannon was sidelined. He's still eligible to attend the meeting - just not as a permanent member, and he did in fact attend the first meeting after what was incorrectly spun by the Left as his removal.

He is no longer a formal member, and his own team has stated he was only ever there temporarily to ensure McMaster and co behaved appropriately.

Alistair

The ConspiracyNut-InfoWars crowd has now declared Trump is the same as NeoConHilary.

Would be fun to be inside that Social media bubble right now.

Jonathan

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

There is a very, very cynical interpretation of events in Syria. Distance between the US and Russia is convenient right now. I don't want to believe it.

To what end would that be, though?

I don't want to think about it. It is not a thing.

DavidL

GeoffM said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

I agree with all of that. But the UN is diminished by this action. It is a part of the collateral damage. Interesting this comes the day after the side lining of Steve Bannon. I think relations with Russia are going to have a very different tone going forward.

Interesting that you think Steve Bannon was sidelined. He's still eligible to attend the meeting - just not as a permanent member, and he did in fact attend the first meeting after what was incorrectly spun by the Left as his removal.

Before the working assumption was that Bannon was the President's voice and would have his backing automatically. There was even a suggestion that he had a Karl Rove like role. This is no longer the case and his authority is diminished. Still there, still influential but not the power he was.

tlg86

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

There is a very, very cynical interpretation of events in Syria. Distance between the US and Russia is convenient right now. I don't want to believe it.

To what end would that be, though?

Presumably to make Trump look like he's standing up to Assad and, I guess, Russia. All with the latter's approval. I think that's unlikely because Assad (or at least his generals) has used chemical weapons in the past.

SimonStClare

Fat_Steve said:

JackW said:

BTW ....

The JackW Committee for Public Morality in Broadcasting raised an eyebrow when it noted one of the thread leaders yesterday was on Political Betting and vice.

We can but recall those salad days of PB when it was in black and white and when OGH visiting London didn't involve having tea and honey(traps) with the Russian embassy.

Indeed. And now there are podcasts and speech and iI don't know what. I can remember when the site didn't have sound, but employed a pianist to provide atmospheric musical accompaniment

- Did Smithson Jnr make clay pots during the interlude when the servers were down?

GeoffM

rcs1000 said:

GeoffM said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

I agree with all of that. But the UN is diminished by this action. It is a part of the collateral damage. Interesting this comes the day after the side lining of Steve Bannon. I think relations with Russia are going to have a very different tone going forward.

Interesting that you think Steve Bannon was sidelined. He's still eligible to attend the meeting - just not as a permanent member, and he did in fact attend the first meeting after what was incorrectly spun by the Left as his removal.

He is no longer a formal member, and his own team has stated he was only ever there temporarily to ensure McMaster and co behaved appropriately.

Yes I read the bit about him being there to watch Flynn (not his replacement McMaster) but I dropped it from my purely factual reply ... that bit could be interpreted as spin and it took away from my specific point of it not being an anti-Bannon move.

MarqueeMark

SimonStClare said:

Fat_Steve said:

JackW said:

BTW ....

The JackW Committee for Public Morality in Broadcasting raised an eyebrow when it noted one of the thread leaders yesterday was on Political Betting and vice.

We can but recall those salad days of PB when it was in black and white and when OGH visiting London didn't involve having tea and honey(traps) with the Russian embassy.

Indeed. And now there are podcasts and speech and iI don't know what. I can remember when the site didn't have sound, but employed a pianist to provide atmospheric musical accompaniment

- Did Smithson Jnr make clay pots during the interlude when the servers were down?

....and Plato supplied the kittens.

malcolmg

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

Randomly bombing one side will fix that every time for sure, playing politics is hardly th eway to fix anything.

malcolmg

nunu said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

An idiot speaks

rottenborough

Morning all,

Trump's first major act of any consequence. Troubling, but doing nothing was troubling as well. In a nutshell this sums up the Syria nightmare, and, indeed, many international situations.

tlg86

@Jonathan - The lady on Sky News paper review is suggesting that this all just for show.

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

In the 1980s the west stood back as Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, first against the Iranians, and then against civilians in his own country. In fact, we continued to support him.

That decision came back and bit us just a few years later. Would the world be a more stable place now if we'd withdrawn all support for, or even punished, Hussein after the Halabja attack in 1988?

In 2013 we stood back as Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Since then, the situation in Syria and the region has worsened massively. There was a narrow window of opportunity that has now evaporated.

A decision not to act is as much a decision as a decision to act. Those who argued against the strikes against Assad in 2013 need to defend that decision in the light of everything that has occurred since.

Perhaps if we had refrained from trying to oust him by funding nutjob rebels, who do most of the murdering, against a legitimate government just as we wrecked Iraq , Libya , Afghanistan, etc. You would think our dumb politicians would finally get it and realise they are the cause not the solution.
However they will see it as more bombs required so good for business regardless of who pays the price.

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

nunu said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

That might cause problems with the Russian forces at Khmeimim (though according to Wiki that is actually technically a Russian air base).

They will steer well clear of the Rusians , they won't want a bloody nose, preferring soft targets that cannot fight back. Best we will do is hold on to US coat tails hoping to gain some reflected glory.

nunu

JosiasJessop said:

nunu said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

That might cause problems with the Russian forces at Khmeimim (though according to Wiki that is actually technically a Russian air base).

they would be given warning to either retreat or face consequences, they are no match for american military power-not even close. They would back down.

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

It's interesting that this attack has occurred immediately after Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

North Korea must be a bit more worried this morning.

I doubt that very much

nunu

Alistair said:

The ConspiracyNut-InfoWars crowd has now declared Trump is the same as NeoConHilary.

Would be fun to be inside that Social media bubble right now.

they are calling the chemical attack a hoax......

rottenborough

What time will Seamus Milne, I mean Jezza, condemn these attacks? At the moment he is still sending tweets out about school dinners.

kle4

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

We tolerated it before.

malcolmg

OldKingCole said:

Do we know that the base the Americans attacked was the one from which the chemical weapons attack was launched?

No , just a guess, bet they don't even know who used them or where they came from

CarlottaVance

Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said the Russians were informed in “multiple conversations” on Thursday, through the “deconfliction channel” – a communications channel to the Russian base at Latakia used to avoid collisions or exchanges of fire between US and allied planes and Russian planes:

There are Russians at the base and we took extraordinary precautions to not target the area where the Russians are.

This will raise many questions, says Guardian US national security editor Spencer Ackerman:

The Russians are sure to have routed that warning to Assad, raising immediate questions about what the strike will have accomplished.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/apr/07/us-syria-response-donald-trump-assad-pentagon-live?CMP=twt_gu

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Still got the weird bullet point issue.

Also, mildly amused Trump's tougher at enforcing Obama's red lines than Obama was. On a more serious note, I wonder if Assad will stop using chemical weapons (it was a few years between the most recent attack and the previous one) or try using them again to be defiant.

F1: Malaysia's race this year will be the last. Whilst not a classic, it is one of the better modern circuits, and memories of the 2009 monsoon mean the bookies usually overestimate the chances of a safety car appearance (after Hungary, it's the track least likely to see one).

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

This seems quite a measured response to me but it is the first time that the US has directly attacked Assad. The UK has maintained for quite a long time that Assad is very much a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

For a while in the late Obama period they were looking pretty isolated in that as the US seemed to be willing to deal with Assad. I think that there was apprehension that we may be even more out of line with Trump's more isolationist approach but he seems to have come around to a position much more compatible with that of the UK fairly quickly. I think the UK will be pleased and not a little relieved at this.

What the US has done, again, is demonstrate the irrelevance and impotence of the United Nations. Rather than wait for any resolutions, vetoed or not, they have simply acted. I think we have to assume that the UN will play almost no role at all in Trump's actions going forward and not just in Syria.

The UN does some amazing work, especially in areas like health. When it comes to keeping the peace is it lacklustre. At times the Security Council is farcical.

But I'd rather have it than not.

Another set of troughers that make our lot look tame by comparison.

kle4

Essexit said:

notme said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

Without Ed Miliband agreeing to support a government vote for intervention if six points are met, and then reneging at the last moment even when those points are met because it created an opportunity to embarrass the prime minister, possibly a better response.

Agreed. Ironic that Miliband was so ineffective as opposition leader, but the one big thing he achieved may have cost thousands of lives.

I've said before I was fine with ed m on most things, but his actions round then and his statements about it later were very shameful - his motions were not to oppose action in principle, which would be a more consistent and defendable position, but he later pretended they were.

Morris_Dancer

F1: just checking the live feed. This is... unexpected:

"If this fog doesn't lift at all through the weekend we could end up with the very bizarre situation of no qualifying and even no race. Unprecedented."

kle4

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

In the 1980s the west stood back as Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, first against the Iranians, and then against civilians in his own country. In fact, we continued to support him.

That decision came back and bit us just a few years later. Would the world be a more stable place now if we'd withdrawn all support for, or even punished, Hussein after the Halabja attack in 1988?

In 2013 we stood back as Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Since then, the situation in Syria and the region has worsened massively. There was a narrow window of opportunity that has now evaporated.

A decision not to act is as much a decision as a decision to act. Those who argued against the strikes against Assad in 2013 need to defend that decision in the light of everything that has occurred since.

Perhaps if we had refrained from trying to oust him by funding nutjob rebels, who do most of the murdering, against a legitimate government just as we wrecked Iraq , Libya , Afghanistan, etc. You would think our dumb politicians would finally get it and realise they are the cause not the solution.
However they will see it as more bombs required so good for business regardless of who pays the price.

I hardly think we wrecked Libya. Did we help make it Worse? There's an argument given how things have gone, but it wasalready wrecked. We are not the cause in such places, that removes responsibility from the people who live in these places, though obviously we've made things worse before, but that is not the same thing.

rkrkrk

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: just checking the live feed. This is... unexpected:

"If this fog doesn't lift at all through the weekend we could end up with the very bizarre situation of no qualifying and even no race. Unprecedented."

Does it get cancelled then? Or redone at a later date?

Essexit

kle4 said:

Essexit said:

notme said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

Without Ed Miliband agreeing to support a government vote for intervention if six points are met, and then reneging at the last moment even when those points are met because it created an opportunity to embarrass the prime minister, possibly a better response.

Agreed. Ironic that Miliband was so ineffective as opposition leader, but the one big thing he achieved may have cost thousands of lives.

I've said before I was fine with ed m on most things, but his actions round then and his statements about it later were very shameful - his motions were not to oppose action in principle, which would be a more consistent and defendable position, but he later pretended they were.

Basically, he caved in to the far left of his party. It was a sign of things to come.

malcolmg

nunu said:

Alistair said:

The ConspiracyNut-InfoWars crowd has now declared Trump is the same as NeoConHilary.

Would be fun to be inside that Social media bubble right now.

they are calling the chemical attack a hoax......

more likely the rebels doing it to get sympathy. Assad and teh Russians are knocking the crap out of them , it is near the end so what else can they do.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. rkrkrk, not sure. This hasn't happened before, as far as I know.

I would guess it'll be simply cancelled. The calendar's pretty packed nowadays.

There is a four week gap around July/August but that's entirely deliberate to give teams some time off. Otherwise, slotting China back in would likely mean three consecutive weeks of races.

So, I think it might just be cancelled.

Alistair

malcolmg said:

nunu said:

Alistair said:

The ConspiracyNut-InfoWars crowd has now declared Trump is the same as NeoConHilary.

Would be fun to be inside that Social media bubble right now.

they are calling the chemical attack a hoax......

more likely the rebels doing it to get sympathy. Assad and teh Russians are knocking the crap out of them , it is near the end so what else can they do.

Fucking hell Malcolm, take a look at yourself.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said the Russians were informed in “multiple conversations” on Thursday, through the “deconfliction channel” – a communications channel to the Russian base at Latakia used to avoid collisions or exchanges of fire between US and allied planes and Russian planes:

There are Russians at the base and we took extraordinary precautions to not target the area where the Russians are.

This will raise many questions, says Guardian US national security editor Spencer Ackerman:

The Russians are sure to have routed that warning to Assad, raising immediate questions about what the strike will have accomplished.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/apr/07/us-syria-response-donald-trump-assad-pentagon-live?CMP=twt_gu

Just a bonus for bomb makers, empty rhetoric from toothless west upset that Russia have had to do teh job for them as they backed and funded the baddies

kle4

A coordinated campaign of bombing might have achieved something at one point, but thisright now on the face of itlooks like merely a random hit to prove they're doing something.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Fat_Steve said:

JackW said:

BTW ....

The JackW Committee for Public Morality in Broadcasting raised an eyebrow when it noted one of the thread leaders yesterday was on Political Betting and vice.

We can but recall those salad days of PB when it was in black and white and when OGH visiting London didn't involve having tea and honey(traps) with the Russian embassy.

Indeed. And now there are podcasts and speech and iI don't know what. I can remember when the site didn't have sound, but employed a pianist to provide atmospheric musical accompaniment

"a pianist to provide atmospheric musical accompaniment"
That would be awesome.

Malmesbury

The Trump effect here is worth noting* - Hillary would have done the same, and everyone would have nodded sagely about a proportionate response.

Which reminds me of - http://westwing.wikia.com/wiki/A_Proportional_Response - bombing Syria for misbehaving, no less.

* In the sense that when he does something sensible, his moronic oafishness casts a shadow over his actions.

nunu

steve hawkes‏Verified account @steve_hawkes 8m8 minutes ago

Tim Farron backs Trump and seems to suggest UK should consider "surgical strikes". Who'd have thought . Wonder what Ed Miliband think

JosiasJessop

kle4 said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

We tolerated it before.

And things got much worse.

MaxPB

nunu said:

steve hawkes‏Verified account @steve_hawkes 8m8 minutes ago

Tim Farron backs Trump and seems to suggest UK should consider "surgical strikes". Who'd have thought . Wonder what Ed Miliband think

Farron is a neoconservative.

rottenborough

Malmesbury said:

The Trump effect here is worth noting - Hillary would have done the same, and everyone would have nodded sagely about a proportionate response.

Which reminds me of - http://westwing.wikia.com/wiki/A_Proportional_Response - bombing Syria for misbehaving, no less.

Not everyone - the Bernie Saunders gang would have moaned about how this just shows they were right to say she was basically a warmonger.

nunu

malcolmg said:

nunu said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

An idiot speaks

Learn to spell the word "the" before you throw stones.

GIN1138

So where does this leave Dem attacks that Trump is in Putin's pocket?

rottenborough

Here we go again. LibDems have response out. Jezza - silence.

malcolmg

Alistair said:

malcolmg said:

nunu said:

Alistair said:

The ConspiracyNut-InfoWars crowd has now declared Trump is the same as NeoConHilary.

Would be fun to be inside that Social media bubble right now.

they are calling the chemical attack a hoax......

more likely the rebels doing it to get sympathy. Assad and teh Russians are knocking the crap out of them , it is near the end so what else can they do.

Fucking hell Malcolm, take a look at yourself.

Prove me wrong then , just as likely to be rebels as Assad. Expain how it helps anything , give me any example where the west have not messed up a middle eastern country in recent times, rather they cause most of the havoc.
Take a look at yourself , UK supplying bombs and missiles that are murdering thousands of women and children in Yemen , we helped US wreck Iraq , Libya , Afghanistan etc
UK and US fund undesirable people that make Assad look like a pussy cat. Get a grip and drop the holier than thou , I did not hear any outrage on here last week when US bombed and killed hundreds of civilians , that was just a small error.

freetochoose

I loathe war but Trump has been firm and decisive, I'm sure this will do him no harm in US.

MaxPB

rottenborough said:

Malmesbury said:

The Trump effect here is worth noting - Hillary would have done the same, and everyone would have nodded sagely about a proportionate response.

Which reminds me of - http://westwing.wikia.com/wiki/A_Proportional_Response - bombing Syria for misbehaving, no less.

Not everyone - the Bernie Saunders gang would have moaned about how this just shows they were right to say she was basically a warmonger.

Not true, Hillary would have sent in the troops. She was 100% mad.

Theuniondivvie

Fat_Steve said:

JackW said:

BTW ....

The JackW Committee for Public Morality in Broadcasting raised an eyebrow when it noted one of the thread leaders yesterday was on Political Betting and vice.

We can but recall those salad days of PB when it was in black and white and when OGH visiting London didn't involve having tea and honey(traps) with the Russian embassy.

Indeed. And now there are podcasts and speech and iI don't know what. I can remember when the site didn't have sound, but employed a pianist to provide atmospheric musical accompaniment

It all started going to pot when the moderators stopped wearing dinner jackets.

nunu

steve hawkes‏Verified account @steve_hawkes 8m8 minutes ago

Tim Farron backs Trump and seems to suggest UK should consider "surgical strikes". Who'd have thought . Wonder what Ed Miliband think

Apperently the air base that Trump attacked was shared by the Russians.

GIN1138

Michael Gove's piece in The Times today Re. parents taking children on holiday in term time is quite something...

What a puffed up, jumped up, fool of a man he is...

MaxPB

freetochoose said:

I loathe war but Trump has been firm and decisive, I'm sure this will do him no harm in US.

Or overseas, after 8 years of presidential dithering Trump has proven himself a man of action. Other nations now know where they stand wrt to military intervention. I can imagine Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are breathing huge sighs of relief this morning.

kle4

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

nunu said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

That might cause problems with the Russian forces at Khmeimim (though according to Wiki that is actually technically a Russian air base).

They will steer well clear of the Rusians , they won't want a bloody nose, preferring soft targets that cannot fight back. Best we will do is hold on to US coat tails hoping to gain some reflected glory.

I don't know that this action will help at all but not everything in such matters isabout trying to achieve glory, Malc, in complex situations where little can realistically achieved it's too simplistic and a comfort blanket to always interpret things like that.

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

We tolerated it before.

And things got much worse.

Did you mention the US killing hundreds last week by bombing civilians instead of rebels.

JosiasJessop

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

Malmesbury said:

The Trump effect here is worth noting - Hillary would have done the same, and everyone would have nodded sagely about a proportionate response.

Which reminds me of - http://westwing.wikia.com/wiki/A_Proportional_Response - bombing Syria for misbehaving, no less.

Not everyone - the Bernie Saunders gang would have moaned about how this just shows they were right to say she was basically a warmonger.

Not true, Hillary would have sent in the troops. She was 100% mad.

LOL. No.

kle4

Theuniondivvie said:

Fat_Steve said:

JackW said:

BTW ....

The JackW Committee for Public Morality in Broadcasting raised an eyebrow when it noted one of the thread leaders yesterday was on Political Betting and vice.

We can but recall those salad days of PB when it was in black and white and when OGH visiting London didn't involve having tea and honey(traps) with the Russian embassy.

Indeed. And now there are podcasts and speech and iI don't know what. I can remember when the site didn't have sound, but employed a pianist to provide atmospheric musical accompaniment

It all started going to pot when the moderators stopped wearing dinner jackets.

The lack of servers providing grapes as one reclined and opined, was particular galling as changes went.

malcolmg

freetochoose said:

I loathe war but Trump has been firm and decisive, I'm sure this will do him no harm in US.

Yes bombing an empty airbase , real tough. Ohone them up and give them a couple of hours to get a good vantage point for the fireworks display. Puff out chest and boast how tough you are , then wait for UK to claim they are your pals and have a good laugh.

nunu

Alistair said:

malcolmg said:

nunu said:

Alistair said:

The ConspiracyNut-InfoWars crowd has now declared Trump is the same as NeoConHilary.

Would be fun to be inside that Social media bubble right now.

they are calling the chemical attack a hoax......

more likely the rebels doing it to get sympathy. Assad and teh Russians are knocking the crap out of them , it is near the end so what else can they do.

Fucking hell Malcolm, take a look at yourself.

A depressingly common view.....on twitter.

rottenborough

fallon r4 now

malcolmg

nunu said:

malcolmg said:

nunu said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

First. What is the world coming to?

And I wonder how our British politicians will respond.

If the world tolerated chemical weapon attacks on civilians I would be more worried

hear, hear. I hope TM gives her full backing. Destroy ALL Syrian air bases.

An idiot speaks

Learn to spell the word "the" before you throw stones.

You are one of many and looks like your command of grammar is at the idiot level also.