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.
Very sad that the Romanian National, Andrea Cristea, has died of her injuries in the Westminster attack. The family agreed to withdraw her life support today.
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.
malc likes his turnips cooked in tinfoil. Who knew?
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.
malc likes his turnips cooked in tinfoil. Who knew?
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all the deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
Given Assad is not stupid , and neither are the Russians and fact that they are knocking the crap out of the rebels it seems odd that they should suddenly roll out chemical weapons. Just as likely it was rebels who had them stored for use. Bombing a sovereign state is illegal, added to the list they have already illegally bombed back to the stone age.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
And the Saudi's fully endorse yesterday's US air strike
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
At this point Syria is an Iranian occupation with Assad as a figure head.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
At this point Syria is an Iranian occupation with Assad as a figure head.
Which is stupid, why wouldn't the Iranians insist that Assad step down and seek exile in Russia so that a puppet without any history can be installed?
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
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.
Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Ghaddafi and Afghanistan under the Taliban were pretty wrecked before and the latter sheltered Bin Laden when he launched 9/11
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
At this point Syria is an Iranian occupation with Assad as a figure head.
Which is stupid, why wouldn't the Iranians insist that Assad step down and seek exile in Russia so that a puppet without any history can be installed?
In such a scenario I'd hav thought such a thing would have to wait until after they have won (not just are winning) or it looks too obvious who is pulling the strings. Stepping down as president but staying in country might work in such a scenario after the conflict.
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
I don't know that that makes it irrelevant. That it is true others would sell to such places if we didn't doesn't mean we have to sell to such awful people, knowing full well what they do with them. We choose to because we've made the calculation that a) it provides money and jobs at home worth such a price, and b) gives at least some modicum of influence and dialogue with those places.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
And the Saudi's fully endorse yesterday's US air strike
Of course they do. They are once again celebrating the fact that no one has decided that, as sponsors of much of the violence across the Middle East, they should be the real target.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
And the Saudi's fully endorse yesterday's US air strike
Why didn't they perform the strike then? They have the capability.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
And the Saudi's fully endorse yesterday's US air strike
Why didn't they perform the strike then? They have the capability.
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
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.
Tim Farron is the most hawklike LD leader since Paddy Ashdown, if that is not a contradiction in terms
I wonder if such an attitude could hurt their progress in some places.
Farron is clearly targeting moderate Tories and Blairites not left-wing Labour voters like Charles Kennedy so it makes some sense
What about all that talk of replacing Labour and so on though? It's always seemed the LDs have a large contingent who wish they were outright to the left.
This will bring Trump closer to NATO. That is very good news for us - especially after his warm words for the EU last week. Our interests are now beginning to align and that could make it easier for May to ignore her swivel-eyed right flank in order to secure a sensible, non-cliff edge Brexit deal.
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.
Tim Farron is the most hawklike LD leader since Paddy Ashdown, if that is not a contradiction in terms
I wonder if such an attitude could hurt their progress in some places.
Tim Farron was measured on question time last night before the attack and full marks to him in endorsing the action. At least the Government and Lib Dems have both fully backed the US but it says everything about the state of the principal opposition to the government that it has absolutely nothing to say.
Labour deserve to be annihilated in May and, if nothing changes, in the 2020 GE
Coming up to 8:30am. Nothing on Syria from Labour on any official twitter account, incl press office, that I can see.
I assume Jezza is walking in the Lakes again.
Better to keep quiet, I'd have thought. Saying anything would merely highlight just how irrelevant Labour is and would, in any case, lead to Corbyn contradicting it a short time later.
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
Good guess but wrong again, you'll see I started by saying I loathe war. By all means stand by and watch children be gassed, wring your hands and say how awful it is. Appeasement is where you're nice to the lion hoping he eats you last.
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all. But that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
Coming up to 8:30am. Nothing on Syria from Labour on any official twitter account, incl press office, that I can see.
I assume Jezza is walking in the Lakes again.
Better to keep quiet, I'd have thought. Saying anything would merely highlight just how irrelevant Labour is and would, in any case, lead to Corbyn contradicting it a short time later.
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
I don't know that that makes it irrelevant. That it is true others would sell to such places if we didn't doesn't mean we have to sell to such awful people, knowing full well what they do with them. We choose to because we've made the calculation that a) it provides money and jobs at home worth such a price, and b) gives at least some modicum of influence and dialogue with those places.
Ask the recently deceased from an attack in Syria if the source of the weapon was more relevant than the fact that it was used.
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
Philip, fact they can get the weapons elsewhere does not justify or make moral the UK desperation to make money out of selling bombs etc to these nutjobs. Have we no morals or principles in this country nowadys and justify aiding and abetting murder of women and children with the excuse that someone else would sell them anyway. How far we have fallen.
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
And the Saudi's fully endorse yesterday's US air strike
Why didn't they perform the strike then? They have the capability.
Well that question could apply to all the coalition parties
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.
Even if the Syrian forces were warned, it's perfectly possible that real damage might have been done to the base's infrastructure. If they've managed that with minimal loss of life, good.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
And the Saudi's fully endorse yesterday's US air strike
Why didn't they perform the strike then? They have the capability.
Bombing Yemen who have no airforce is easier for them.
Coming up to 8:30am. Nothing on Syria from Labour on any official twitter account, incl press office, that I can see.
I assume Jezza is walking in the Lakes again.
Better to keep quiet, I'd have thought. Saying anything would merely highlight just how irrelevant Labour is and would, in any case, lead to Corbyn contradicting it a short time later.
who is labour's defence person - i lose track?
I think it is someone Welsh :-) Not sure who the foreign affairs spokesperson is either!
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all, but that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
Circumstances changed with the use of gas, actions therefore change.
A plan has to adapt to be appropriate for the new reality. Speed of adaption is an advantage.
I seem to recall a recent & relatively widely held PB view that we should pragmatically support Assad/Putin in a crusade against the slavering fascists of Isis and the Wahhabites. I'm assuming this is now a deceased duck?
This will bring Trump closer to NATO. That is very good news for us - especially after his warm words for the EU last week. Our interests are now beginning to align and that could make it easier for May to ignore her swivel-eyed right flank in order to secure a sensible, non-cliff edge Brexit deal.
That has been the likely outcome since Theresa May became PM. She is not a hard Brexiteer and you can see the clever way she is moving the debate to a close friendly divorce with a sensible transistion.
Coming up to 8:30am. Nothing on Syria from Labour on any official twitter account, incl press office, that I can see.
I assume Jezza is walking in the Lakes again.
Better to keep quiet, I'd have thought. Saying anything would merely highlight just how irrelevant Labour is and would, in any case, lead to Corbyn contradicting it a short time later.
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
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.
Tim Farron is the most hawklike LD leader since Paddy Ashdown, if that is not a contradiction in terms
I wonder if such an attitude could hurt their progress in some places.
Why did Cameron need Millibands support back in 2013 the coalition had a good working majority ?
Dozens of Tories voted against their own leader.
IIRC at the time it was understood that the Tory rebels were trying to make a point (not sure what about, you know those rebels) and that the outcome (defeat) was not what they had wanted.
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.
Tim Farron is the most hawklike LD leader since Paddy Ashdown, if that is not a contradiction in terms
I wonder if such an attitude could hurt their progress in some places.
Why did Cameron need Millibands support back in 2013 the coalition had a good working majority ?
Dozens of Tories voted against their own leader.
IIRC at the time it was understood that the Tory rebels were trying to make a point (not sure what about, you know those rebels) and that the outcome (defeat) was not what they had wanted.
The first rule in politics is to be able to add up, as iirc Harold Wilson first 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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
Philip, fact they can get the weapons elsewhere does not justify or make moral the UK desperation to make money out of selling bombs etc to these nutjobs. Have we no morals or principles in this country nowadys and justify aiding and abetting murder of women and children with the excuse that someone else would sell them anyway. How far we have fallen.
Morning Malc - just as a matter of interest do you know how many Scots jobs depend on the defence industry. This is a genuine question as I am under the impression that Scotland does have a substantial involvement in the sector
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 hour
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East.hambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it t
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" feach other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to tclever.
The source of the supply of weapons is i
I don't know that that makes it irrelevant. That it is true others would sell to such places if we didn't doesn't mean we have to sell to such awful people, knowing full well what they do with them. We choose to because we've made the calculation that a) it provides money and jobs at home worth such a price, and b) gives at least some modicum of influence and dialogue with those places.
Ask the recently deceased from an attack in Syria if the source of the weapon was more relevant than the fact that it was used.
It's not irrelevant to us in terms of our moral culpability, of course its irrelevant to the dead. As a nation we've made the call our making money from selling such things to terrible people is worth that culpability, no doubt in part on the basis that others will sell if we do not, and that's a harsh but understandable position in national terms. I'm not taking the malcG position that we are exactly as culpable as if we'd fired the things ourselves, but what it is not is irrelevant.
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
Yes, it was the least bad option at the time. As a Chatham House bod put it, anti-Assad, non-IS, non-AQ, and therefore "friendly" rebels were pretty hard to find on the ground but they did exist.
I seem to recall a recent & relatively widely held PB view that we should pragmatically support Assad/Putin in a crusade against the slavering fascists of Isis and the Wahhabites. I'm assuming this is now a deceased duck?
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
Philip, fact they can get the weapons elsewhere does not justify or make moral the UK desperation to make money out of selling bombs etc to these nutjobs. Have we no morals or principles in this country nowadys and justify aiding and abetting murder of women and children with the excuse that someone else would sell them anyway. How far we have fallen.
From when? Did we not use to directly take over other places, is that better than selling weapons? I am a little confused.
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
Philip, fact they can get the weapons elsewhere does not justify or make moral the UK desperation to make money out of selling bombs etc to these nutjobs. Have we no morals or principles in this country nowadys and justify aiding and abetting murder of women and children with the excuse that someone else would sell them anyway. How far we have fallen.
We won't sell cluster bombs, land mines and some other items. That puts us ahead of some others.
I wouldn't work in the munitions industry.
The weapons is a side issue. It is the inability of the region to live in peace that is the problem. Maybe our munitions give a quicker and less painful death than the alternative killing methods available if we revert to stoneage warfare in the region. As such they can be classed as humane. (NB there is some sarcasm in there)
Mr. Topping, action had been agreed to be taken between Cameron and Miliband.
The Conservatives and Labour then decided to dance on the head of a pin, with the result both motions narrowly failed and no action was taken.
No. Or not exactly.
Some Conservative rebels, together with Ed's politicking resulted in the motion failing.
Now of course it is incumbent upon the LotO to politick. I happen to think that in this case he shouldn't have (having agreed, apparently, to support Dave earlier).
There are times in life (and politics) when you are caught between the figurative rock and the metaphorical hard place.
The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria has been analysed by some as a sign of weakness - conversely, I think Assad and the Syrian Army came to the conclusion that as the West had not responded in 2013 and given everything else (including some friendly noises from Washington) that they could do it and get away with it again.
The Washington response seems the best available. The Russians will publicly rant and it may be the initial Trump-Putin love-in will cool (as it already has).
I suspect the Russians care nothing for Assad but they do care about their bases and especially Latakia and will not countenance a regime in Damascus that will seek their removal. The Syrian rebels and the West need to understand that - as long as the Russian military presence in Syria remains, I suspect Moscow are less bothered about the political arrangements in Damascus.
It's messy and unsatisfactory but the solution - the anti-Assad non-ISIL rebels to declare publicly their continued support for a Russian military presence in Syria. They won't like it but that's the price you sometimes have to pay.
The complication of ISIL as a potential regime changer (more imagined than actual) has aided Moscow and Assad in being able to paint a picture of a far worse alternative (and I'm sure ISIL would have no qualms about using chemical weapons).
Today's cruise missile strike won't end Syria's suffering and the cynic might argue being killed by sarin or shrapnel from a barrel bomb leaves you just as dead. It also signals an end to the disengagement of the later Obama-Cameron years and while no one is talking ground troops yet, the cynic might again argue today marks the first step on a route that ends with a UN peacekeeping force (including British soldiers) patrolling the streets of Damascus and Aleppo.
I seem to recall a recent & relatively widely held PB view that we should pragmatically support Assad/Putin in a crusade against the slavering fascists of Isis and the Wahhabites. I'm assuming this is now a deceased duck?
It depends if you think the victims of the chemical attack were Isis or not. Whilst I wouldn't consider use of chemical weapons against Isis acceptable, Trump's statement was made no suggestion that the victims of the attack were anything other than innocent anti-Assad rebels. Whether that is the case is another matter.
I seem to recall a recent & relatively widely held PB view that we should pragmatically support Assad/Putin in a crusade against the slavering fascists of Isis and the Wahhabites. I'm assuming this is now a deceased duck?
It depends if you think the victims of the chemical attack were Isis or not. Whilst I wouldn't consider use of chemical weapons against Isis acceptable, Trump's statement was made no suggestion that the victims of the attack were anything other than innocent anti-Assad rebels. Whether that is the case is another matter.
Yes, I'm sure the dead children in the pictures were ISIS ...
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I seem to recall a recent & relatively widely held PB view that we should pragmatically support Assad/Putin in a crusade against the slavering fascists of Isis and the Wahhabites. I'm assuming this is now a deceased duck?
It depends if you think the victims of the chemical attack were Isis or not. Whilst I wouldn't consider use of chemical weapons against Isis acceptable, Trump's statement was made no suggestion that the victims of the attack were anything other than innocent anti-Assad rebels. Whether that is the case is another matter.
Yes, I'm sure the dead children in the pictures were ISIS ...
Well there are children in places held by ISIS, but you knew what I meant.
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
Meanwhile Labour are still tweeting about school policy. Has the entire shadow cabinet taken Easter off and left a load of twitter messages on delayed release on tweetbot?
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all. But that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
It seems pretty clear that this has been powerfully influenced by the new National Security Advisor, Gen McMaster. He's one of the smartest guys in the US general staff, and a well-known Russia hawk. His influence, on paper at least, should be a Good Thing.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
Assad might think twice before using chemical weapons.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
What about the limited aim of discouraging the use of chemical weapons?
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.
What should he have done?
Hard to say given how big a mess the US and UK have made of the Middle East. They have backed the wrong people every time and are as complicit in all teh deaths there as much as anyone. Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all. But that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
It seems pretty clear that this has been powerfully influenced by the new National Security Advisor, Gen McMaster. He's one of the smartest guys in the US general staff, and a well-known Russia hawk. His influence, on paper at least, should be a Good Thing.
Fingers crossed that you are right, but it looks that way this morning.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
It has sent a message that there will be a retaliation for any use of chemical weapons. If this helps prevent the further usage of chemical weapons by Assad or others then that has achieved something "in real terms on the ground in Syria" even if it doesn't bring the conflict to a resolution.
Just because there is no perfect solution doesn't mean there aren't right moves to make.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
That is even more the case if the Russians, and therefore the Syrians, were warned the strikes would be taking place. Should that turn out to be true, it will have been nothing more than an exercise in futile willy-waving, that will actually send out a signal that the US is not at all serious about reining Assad in. At the very least, it is way, way too early to begin to talk about the emergence of any kind of Trump doctrine.
It is also worth remembering that Trump would like to ban all those on the end of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria from entering the US.
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all. But that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
It seems pretty clear that this has been powerfully influenced by the new National Security Advisor, Gen McMaster. He's one of the smartest guys in the US field staff, and a well-known Russia hawk. His influence, on paper at least, should be a Good Thing.
H.R. McMaster is a legend. He is one of the greatest military tactians and strategists of all time.
The Battle of 73 Easting was Caeseresque in its boldness and brilliance.
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all. But that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
It seems pretty clear that this has been powerfully influenced by the new National Security Advisor, Gen McMaster. He's one of the smartest guys in the US general staff, and a well-known Russia hawk. His influence, on paper at least, should be a Good Thing.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
What about the limited aim of discouraging the use of chemical weapons?
If warnings were given in advance, there is no discouragement.
Morning. Never good to wake up to news of war, but in this case it's difficult to complain. Use of chemicals against civilians shouldn't be allowed to go unpunished.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
What about the limited aim of discouraging the use of chemical weapons?
I don't think it will work. The trouble is that as always the West (if you will excuse me using a rather generic term which may be unfair to some countries) wants a nice easy solution which follows all the principles we believe in, stops Assad using chemical weapons and also does not put any of our own people in harms way. I believe that if there is one thing we have learned over the last few decades it is that such a solution does not exist. There is nothing we can do to Syria that it has not already done to itself and the only thing that will discourage Assad militarily now is the threat of full Western intervention - something the Russians will not countenance.
Everyone involved directly with Syria has said for years that the only solution to the Assad problem is political not military. All we are doing now is making ourselves feel better and making the situation on the ground worse.
Edit: Sorry Rottenborough not ignoring you. I saw Topping's post first and responded to that but it covers yours as well.
F1: Well that really wasn't worth getting up for, almost no running at all due to fog. Lots of discussions going on about what can be done with the schedules for the next two days - including rumour of qualy and race both on Saturday with more forecast fog on Sunday :O
Fair to say no bets placed yet, it could be a lottery!
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
That is even more the case if the Russians, and therefore the Syrians, were warned the strikes would be taking place. Should that turn out to be true, it will have been nothing more than an exercise in futile willy-waving, that will actually send out a signal that the US is not at all serious about reining Assad in. At the very least, it is way, way too early to begin to talk about the emergence of any kind of Trump doctrine.
It is also worth remembering that Trump would like to ban all those on the end of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria from entering the US.
But we can't solve all of Syria, all of the ME, all of anywhere, frankly.
It is a limited act to achieve a limited aim (deter the use of chemical weapons).
Of course it also puts down a huge fluorescent marker to anyone who's watching (Yo Putin) that the US is back in the geopolitical game. But even if the chemical weapons deterrence was a by-product of this main thrust, it will I hope have done some good.
I'm afraid to say that it also ticks many of the "Make America Great Again" boxes which is why he's there in the first place.
Edit: and @Richard_Tyndall applies also. It is a limited action which fulfilled several aims - MAGA, chemical weapon deterrence even if only incidentally.
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all. But that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
It seems pretty clear that this has been powerfully influenced by the new National Security Advisor, Gen McMaster. He's one of the smartest guys in the US field staff, and a well-known Russia hawk. His influence, on paper at least, should be a Good Thing.
H.R. McMaster is a legend. He is one of the greatest military tactians and strategists of all time.
The Battle of 73 Easting was Caeseresque in its boldness and brilliance.
A trifle too effusive, even for you, TSE. But he is a genuinely thoughtful military intellect, and his recommended reading list deserves much wider scrutiny. I have high hopes for his influence on this administration.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I'm a latter-day non-interventionist, having learned from the Iraq experience, and feel that events in Libya really proved the point.
I think we're all pretty appalled by the use of chemical weapons, though the distinction from major convenional weapons isn't as clear as we make out. So a single targeted retaliation against the base involved is on the face of it proportionate, especially as warning seems to hsave been given via the Russians. I also wonder if there isn't a coded message to North Korea in there.
The reservations that we should have are first that as usual there seems to be no medium-term plan, as you say, and that it's more evidence of emotion-led policy-making by Trump, which at a human level is going to be sometimes a good thing but which doesn't give the stability that we'd ideally like in a world power.
So at present I feel we can call the action understandable, but express concern about what happens next.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
What about the limited aim of discouraging the use of chemical weapons?
If warnings were given in advance, there is no discouragement.
There is if you know the warnings are a one off.
To say next time there is no warning is a perfectly legitimate and humane way to give a message and reduce killing and demonstrate the devastation you can expect if go chemical again..
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.
He has certainly proved himself a man of action, and it's a decision, IMO, that should have been taken in 2013 by us all. But that doesn't mean that the premise of the action was well-thought out and considered, or at least not by him (I just can't see that kind of process from him). So it makes me wonder what advice he is getting and from whom.
It seems pretty clear that this has been powerfully influenced by the new National Security Advisor, Gen McMaster. He's one of the smartest guys in the US general staff, and a well-known Russia hawk. His influence, on paper at least, should be a Good Thing.
Yes, it looks like the Russian hackers' work was in vain. They got Trump elected but now the old cold warriors are back in charge.
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.
More perhaps when the moderators stopped smoking pot ....
Twas also a sad day when Mike decided to commute death sentences on PB offenders and instead exiled them to ConHome. Although some were of the view that the latter was a living death and more appropriate.
It's a close call but the smell of boiling flesh has always found favour in Auchentennach circles ....
Comments
Middle East is such a shambles now that it is hard to see any solution other than getting out and letting them sort it themselves, US and UK only look at their own interests and make it much worse.
Given Assad is not stupid , and neither are the Russians and fact that they are knocking the crap out of the rebels it seems odd that they should suddenly roll out chemical weapons. Just as likely it was rebels who had them stored for use.
Bombing a sovereign state is illegal, added to the list they have already illegally bombed back to the stone age.
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned the Iranians yet. They're far more important than the Russians in keeping Assad afloat. Their reaction will be interesting.
I assume Jezza is walking in the Lakes again.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375609403376144384
That's not a colossal amount upon which to base a pre-qualifying article.
Interesting idea, though qualifying would be on at some ungodly hour (if it's midnight that'd be not so bad, but it could be more like 2-3am start).
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
Anyway, time to see if any markets are up. I wonder if there'll be one on whether there'll be a race at all.
Labour deserve to be annihilated in May and, if nothing changes, in the 2020 GE
A plan has to adapt to be appropriate for the new reality. Speed of adaption is an advantage.
Nia Griffifth, apparently.
No, me neither.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
The Conservatives and Labour then decided to dance on the head of a pin, with the result both motions narrowly failed and no action was taken.
Now, not so much.
I wouldn't work in the munitions industry.
The weapons is a side issue. It is the inability of the region to live in peace that is the problem. Maybe our munitions give a quicker and less painful death than the alternative killing methods available if we revert to stoneage warfare in the region. As such they can be classed as humane. (NB there is some sarcasm in there)
Some Conservative rebels, together with Ed's politicking resulted in the motion failing.
Now of course it is incumbent upon the LotO to politick. I happen to think that in this case he shouldn't have (having agreed, apparently, to support Dave earlier).
There are times in life (and politics) when you are caught between the figurative rock and the metaphorical hard place.
The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria has been analysed by some as a sign of weakness - conversely, I think Assad and the Syrian Army came to the conclusion that as the West had not responded in 2013 and given everything else (including some friendly noises from Washington) that they could do it and get away with it again.
The Washington response seems the best available. The Russians will publicly rant and it may be the initial Trump-Putin love-in will cool (as it already has).
I suspect the Russians care nothing for Assad but they do care about their bases and especially Latakia and will not countenance a regime in Damascus that will seek their removal. The Syrian rebels and the West need to understand that - as long as the Russian military presence in Syria remains, I suspect Moscow are less bothered about the political arrangements in Damascus.
It's messy and unsatisfactory but the solution - the anti-Assad non-ISIL rebels to declare publicly their continued support for a Russian military presence in Syria. They won't like it but that's the price you sometimes have to pay.
The complication of ISIL as a potential regime changer (more imagined than actual) has aided Moscow and Assad in being able to paint a picture of a far worse alternative (and I'm sure ISIL would have no qualms about using chemical weapons).
Today's cruise missile strike won't end Syria's suffering and the cynic might argue being killed by sarin or shrapnel from a barrel bomb leaves you just as dead. It also signals an end to the disengagement of the later Obama-Cameron years and while no one is talking ground troops yet, the cynic might again argue today marks the first step on a route that ends with a UN peacekeeping force (including British soldiers) patrolling the streets of Damascus and Aleppo.
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
https://twitter.com/undefined/status/375609403376144384
*though Corbyn makes him look good in comparison
Just because there is no perfect solution doesn't mean there aren't right moves to make.
It is also worth remembering that Trump would like to ban all those on the end of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria from entering the US.
The Battle of 73 Easting was Caeseresque in its boldness and brilliance.
Everyone involved directly with Syria has said for years that the only solution to the Assad problem is political not military. All we are doing now is making ourselves feel better and making the situation on the ground worse.
Edit: Sorry Rottenborough not ignoring you. I saw Topping's post first and responded to that but it covers yours as well.
Fair to say no bets placed yet, it could be a lottery!
It is a limited act to achieve a limited aim (deter the use of chemical weapons).
Of course it also puts down a huge fluorescent marker to anyone who's watching (Yo Putin) that the US is back in the geopolitical game. But even if the chemical weapons deterrence was a by-product of this main thrust, it will I hope have done some good.
I'm afraid to say that it also ticks many of the "Make America Great Again" boxes which is why he's there in the first place.
Edit: and @Richard_Tyndall applies also. It is a limited action which fulfilled several aims - MAGA, chemical weapon deterrence even if only incidentally.
I think we're all pretty appalled by the use of chemical weapons, though the distinction from major convenional weapons isn't as clear as we make out. So a single targeted retaliation against the base involved is on the face of it proportionate, especially as warning seems to hsave been given via the Russians. I also wonder if there isn't a coded message to North Korea in there.
The reservations that we should have are first that as usual there seems to be no medium-term plan, as you say, and that it's more evidence of emotion-led policy-making by Trump, which at a human level is going to be sometimes a good thing but which doesn't give the stability that we'd ideally like in a world power.
So at present I feel we can call the action understandable, but express concern about what happens next.
To say next time there is no warning is a perfectly legitimate and humane way to give a message and reduce killing and demonstrate the devastation you can expect if go chemical again..
Twas also a sad day when Mike decided to commute death sentences on PB offenders and instead exiled them to ConHome. Although some were of the view that the latter was a living death and more appropriate.
It's a close call but the smell of boiling flesh has always found favour in Auchentennach circles ....