Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
It would be "leaving" not "keeping". "Keeping" implies active support. My least-bad answer is to let the Syrians work out who should govern Syria, and help the refugees.
I'd be open to a better plan if somebody has one, but the process we've seen several times now has been escalating military action, which each time fails to achieve its objectives, which is blamed on insufficient military action, resulting in escalating military action, which etc etc.
As I've said before, deciding not to act is as much a decision as deciding to act. 'Leaving' Assad in place after what he's done makes us as complicit in his future crimes as if we supported him by 'keeping' him.
And as an aside, how do you let the 'Syrians' decide who is in charge, given the massive population movements? What you really mean is let Assad decide who is in charge. I.e. himself.
My 'solution' is not an easy answer, or even a good one. But your 'solution' is the same as it was back in 2013, after which we've had three-and-a-half years more of bloodshed and instability in the region.
It's time to try something different. What matters here is the Syrian people, and it's quite clear that Assad does not give a damn about them.
An argument as to why Melenchon will not only be President, but also win the first round:
1. He is the only candidate with real sustained momentum in the polls.
2. At least a third of the voters are reported to be undecided. Turnout is usually very high, over 80% in 2012. Most expect turnout to be down this time around, but even if it fell to 75% then there are at least 20% who will vote who have not yet made up their minds.
3. The Presidential race puts more emphasis on personality than policies, unlike a GE.
4. Melenchon is seen as the most popular politician and the least unpopular politician in France at the moment.
5. If he makes it to the second round, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a star performer in TV debates. Not only that, his performance does shift voting intentions, as we have seen.
I don't expect any polls showing him to be in the top two, as most of the undecided are likely to remain undecided until the day itself or at least a day or two before the vote in just two weeks time.
I will probably end up with egg on my face and he will come trailing in 4th place, but FWIW, I think the reasons above show that there could be a major shock on the cards.
Wouldn't it be beautiful if we have an insurgent from the left ?
Wasn't the suggestion, some time ago, those who bought EU citizenship would also be subject to EU law even in the UK?
There would be quite a lot of detail. But are we really saying that paid-up EU citizens who hired people would be covered by the working time directive, whereas others would not?
Or, another perspective: that an EU citizen could claim protection from discrimination vis-a-vis a German national, but other people couldn't?
Not sure it would be a running opinion poll although I see where you came from with that idea.
I travel around the EU a lot on business and if it got me through Customs easier and was priced reasonably my company would probably buy it for me. Like a souped-up EasyJet Speedy Boarding.
This new PAYG à la carte EU sounds too good to be true. If we can individually pay for EU rights when we want them, and presumably stop paying when we don't, and the UK as a whole can leave the EU, what's the catch? Because this sounds like the best deal ever, and it's so ridiculously in our favour there must be something missing.
What's in Britain's best interest - a secular dictatorship or an islamist democracy?
The second, but it's not one of the available options.
I can't see any other outcome following the fall of Assad.
If Assad falls, you will get a Saudi backed Islamist-Sharia dictatorship. If you want that, then that's great. If you want a secular dictator [ nothing else is on offer ], then Assad is still your man, blood and all.
Ask Christians and other minorities in Syria, who do they back ?
An argument as to why Melenchon will not only be President, but also win the first round:
1. He is the only candidate with real sustained momentum in the polls.
2. At least a third of the voters are reported to be undecided. Turnout is usually very high, over 80% in 2012. Most expect turnout to be down this time around, but even if it fell to 75% then there are at least 20% who will vote who have not yet made up their minds.
3. The Presidential race puts more emphasis on personality than policies, unlike a GE.
4. Melenchon is seen as the most popular politician and the least unpopular politician in France at the moment.
5. If he makes it to the second round, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a star performer in TV debates. Not only that, his performance does shift voting intentions, as we have seen.
I don't expect any polls showing him to be in the top two, as most of the undecided are likely to remain undecided until the day itself or at least a day or two before the vote in just two weeks time.
I will probably end up with egg on my face and he will come trailing in 4th place, but FWIW, I think the reasons above show that there could be a major shock on the cards.
I think the value is on Melanchon making the last two. I got Melenchon Macron at 120 and Melenchon LePen at 17 midweek. Now 46 and 10, but the MM combination perhaps still good.
Many FN areas used to be heavily Communist, and may well be open to Melenchon.
What's in Britain's best interest - a secular dictatorship or an islamist democracy?
The second, but it's not one of the available options.
I can't see any other outcome following the fall of Assad.
If Assad falls, you will get a Saudi backed Islamist-Sharia dictatorship. If you want that, then that's great. If you want a secular dictator [ nothing else is on offer ], then Assad is still your man, blood and all.
Ask Christians and other minorities in Syria, who do they back ?
Why are Christians and other minorities the only people who should have a say?
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Do you think there is/are rebel group/s in whose interest it is to draw the Americans in ?
So what's the play here, Syrian air craft launch a strike and after the strike the rebel group gasses its own village?. And then Russian aircraft bomb the hospital treating the victims.
Or Syrian aircraft bomb a rebel held poison gas factory and instead of it going up in a ball of fire given all the volatile compounds invloved it spreads out just like a poison gas bombing. And then the Russians bomb the hospital treating the victims?
As far as I know, there is no direct proof that Syrian or Russian planes dropped anything.
Now that we know it is Sarin, it can be made in a laboratory, leave it exposed and it will evaporate and affect people when they breathe in.
If you are saying that Americans know that it was Syria which did it, they were also "sure" Iraq had a mobile biological plant [ Colin Powell ], which turned out to be an Ice Cream van.
For Trump, this was an heaven sent opportunity. All this talk about Russian involvement in US elections, losing out to Obamacare, the crazy rightwingers behaving like a separate bunch, Bannon and Jared fighting like ferrets in a sack can be made to go off the air with one strike. He did just that. He does not need any proof. He does not even care to have one.
It's time to try something different. What matters here is the Syrian people, and it's quite clear that Assad does not give a damn about them.
You still haven't told us what specifically you're suggesting the Americans should do to achieve your proposed solution of a Kurdish autononous state and an alternative dictator from his entourage (who I'm sure will be a total sweety).
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
I don't think that her policy, but it was depicted as such by the foamy mouthed Brexiteers. Certainly it was not a "white Europe" policy.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
It has been unacceptable to use then since WWI. has it made a difference. It was UK and US who started all the manufactur eof such weapons and others followed suit. Key point is that we do not know who really used them and our own people are such pathological cheating liars that you cannot trust anything they tell us.
US and UK? Chemical warfare is first recorded in India in the fourth century BC, then in Greece and China soon afterwards.
An argument as to why Melenchon will not only be President, but also win the first round:
1. He is the only candidate with real sustained momentum in the polls.
2. At least a third of the voters are reported to be undecided. Turnout is usually very high, over 80% in 2012. Most expect turnout to be down this time around, but even if it fell to 75% then there are at least 20% who will vote who have not yet made up their minds.
3. The Presidential race puts more emphasis on personality than policies, unlike a GE.
4. Melenchon is seen as the most popular politician and the least unpopular politician in France at the moment.
5. If he makes it to the second round, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a star performer in TV debates. Not only that, his performance does shift voting intentions, as we have seen.
I don't expect any polls showing him to be in the top two, as most of the undecided are likely to remain undecided until the day itself or at least a day or two before the vote in just two weeks time.
I will probably end up with egg on my face and he will come trailing in 4th place, but FWIW, I think the reasons above show that there could be a major shock on the cards.
I think the value is on Melanchon making the last two. I got Melenchon Macron at 120 and Melenchon LePen at 17 midweek. Now 46 and 10, but the MM combination perhaps still good.
Many FN areas used to be heavily Communist, and may well be open to Melenchon.
Both those bets offer exceptional value in my eyes, for the reasons given. Congrats on getting M/M at 120
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
If it was priced at the same as a UK one and recognized internationally it would be a very attractive option. More benefits for the same cash. The proportion of people holding them would also be like a running opinion poll.
Not a hope the EU will benefit UK for leaving. Just hot air.
Wasn't the suggestion, some time ago, those who bought EU citizenship would also be subject to EU law even in the UK?
The only place I have heard that suggestion was on here. From you I think.
I know even Protestants in Northern Ireland are applying for Irish citizenship. If an EU citizenship was on offer, I will take it. Who won't except UKIP supporters ?
As far as I know, there is no direct proof that Syrian or Russian planes dropped anything.
The Americans tracked Syrian airforce aircraft movements that tied up with the time of the attack, they apparently also detected the bombing itself on radar — and likely also from communication intercepts — and they found photographic evidence of the attack afterwards that fits the tracking.
It's bloody unlikely that it's merely an unfortunate coincidence that makes the Syrian regime look bad.
What's in Britain's best interest - a secular dictatorship or an islamist democracy?
The second, but it's not one of the available options.
I can't see any other outcome following the fall of Assad.
If Assad falls, you will get a Saudi backed Islamist-Sharia dictatorship. If you want that, then that's great. If you want a secular dictator [ nothing else is on offer ], then Assad is still your man, blood and all.
Ask Christians and other minorities in Syria, who do they back ?
Why are Christians and other minorities the only people who should have a say?
I am not saying that they should. But they would certainly back the side that would be least Islamist. Assad is that guy - blood and all. The West has no problem dealing with Al-Sisi or that entire Saudi cabal - all of whom are murderers. Why is Assad different ? Do you think the Saudi's are doing any different in Yemen ?
Anyway, you are averting Edmund's question by raising superfluous points.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
I don't think that her policy, but it was depicted as such by the foamy mouthed Brexiteers. Certainly it was not a "white Europe" policy.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
As you can't even spell 'Gibraltar' correctly you'll excuse me if I don't think you've got any great insight to share.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
I don't think that her policy, but it was depicted as such by the foamy mouthed Brexiteers. Certainly it was not a "white Europe" policy.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
As you can't even spell 'Gibraltar' correctly you'll excuse me if I don't think you've got any great insight to share.
Answer Fox's question rather than hiding behind the spelling of 32000 people who get our defence free. We should charge them. Gibraltar destroyed our bookies profits and was responsible for the removal of the betting tax from which our government earned millions.
As far as I know, there is no direct proof that Syrian or Russian planes dropped anything.
The Americans tracked Syrian airforce aircraft movements that tied up with the time of the attack, they apparently also detected the bombing itself on radar — and likely also from communication intercepts — and they found photographic evidence of the attack afterwards that fits the tracking.
It's bloody unlikely that it's merely an unfortunate coincidence that makes the Syrian regime look bad.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I take offence at that. I haven't voted Tory since 2010.
If you've voted Tory once, you are tainted forever I'm afraid.
If any one of your family has even voted Tory you get flagged on the system.
I think they only go back as far as your grandparents on the light-vetting though.
Are you related to Reinhard Heydrich by any chance?
As far as I know, there is no direct proof that Syrian or Russian planes dropped anything.
The Americans tracked Syrian airforce aircraft movements that tied up with the time of the attack, they apparently also detected the bombing itself on radar — and likely also from communication intercepts — and they found photographic evidence of the attack afterwards that fits the tracking.
It's bloody unlikely that it's merely an unfortunate coincidence that makes the Syrian regime look bad.
Someone said earlier that the Russian lies and misinformation over the demise of the plane that crashed in Ukraine makes it impossible to believe any Russian version of events in Syria.
However, the USA was caught out making up stuff about Iraq... and yet it seems that the same standards of doubt and disbelief are not applied to their version of events in Syria.
On topic the 8/11 for Nuttall to see the year out should be value. For one thing, who is there to take over from him???
I agree, there may well be no one else left in the party by then. What is the payout if UKIP is disbanded before the bet matures?
I don't know, that's the biggest danger I would think, although they would surely hang around as MEPs to the bitter end? Seems like a good bet to me 8/11
It's time to try something different. What matters here is the Syrian people, and it's quite clear that Assad does not give a damn about them.
You still haven't told us what specifically you're suggesting the Americans should do to achieve your proposed solution of a Kurdish autononous state and an alternative dictator from his entourage (who I'm sure will be a total sweety).
They'll need to persuade the Russians and Iranians that the status quo is doing no-one any good. Iranians losing lots of people, including top commanders, and Russia's reputation is going further down the toilet.
Worse, they're not winning. Neither are any of the other sides, but we're in a stalemate where sides are making gains and losses.
"who I'm sure will be a total sweety"
As I acknowledged. Still, there'll be less blood on their hands than on Assads, and perhaps might be persuadable to a new direction that will be of benefit to the Syrian people.
You still haven't told us how why your preferred 'solution' would work to the benefit of the Syrian people, especially as it hasn't worked for the last few years. As an example, if Assad 'wins' (and it's debatable if anyone wins in this mess), then how would you guarantee the Kurds won't be tackled next by Assad and his lackeys? After all, they're a major part of the forces against him.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I take offence at that. I haven't voted Tory since 2010.
If you've voted Tory once, you are tainted forever I'm afraid.
If any one of your family has even voted Tory you get flagged on the system.
I think they only go back as far as your grandparents on the light-vetting though.
Are you related to Reinhard Heydrich by any chance?
You're seriously asking a Jew if I'm related to Heydrich?
You are Ken Livingstone in disguise and I claim my 5 Reichsmarks.
Someone said earlier that the Russian lies and misinformation over the demise of the plane that crashed in Ukraine makes it impossible to believe any Russian version of events in Syria.
However, the USA was caught out making up stuff about Iraq... and yet it seems that the same standards of doubt and disbelief are not applied to their version of events in Syria.
Sure I don't automatically believe the US. But if you are asking who do I believe is telling the truth here I'm inclined to be far more on the US side than the Russian side. The US is generally credible, the Russians are hardly ever so.
Someone said earlier that the Russian lies and misinformation over the demise of the plane that crashed in Ukraine makes it impossible to believe any Russian version of events in Syria.
However, the USA was caught out making up stuff about Iraq... and yet it seems that the same standards of doubt and disbelief are not applied to their version of events in Syria.
Sure I don't automatically believe the US. But if you are asking who do I believe is telling the truth here I'm inclined to be far more on the US side than the Russian side. The US is generally credible, the Russians are hardly ever so.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence" can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
I don't think that her policy, but it was depicted as such by the foamy mouthed Brexiteers. Certainly it was not a "white Europe" policy.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
As you can't even spell 'Gibraltar' correctly you'll excuse me if I don't think you've got any great insight to share.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
I don't think that her policy, but it was depicted as such by the foamy mouthed Brexiteers. Certainly it was not a "white Europe" policy.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
As you can't even spell 'Gibraltar' correctly you'll excuse me if I don't think you've got any great insight to share.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
The suspect behind the Stockholm truck attack had been facing deportation, Swedish police say.
His application for residency was rejected in June last year and he was being sought by immigration officials, police said.
He had been given four weeks to leave the country in December 2016, police chief Jonas Hysing told a press conference. The suspect then disappeared, and police began searching for him, Mr Hysing added.
What's in Britain's best interest - a secular dictatorship or an islamist democracy?
The second, but it's not one of the available options.
I can't see any other outcome following the fall of Assad.
An Islamist dictatorship.
Yes and ten times worse than Assad
I wouldn't like to assume that either but it's a possibility.
Unfortunately previous experience shows us teh aftermath of our meddling is always a worse regime in office and country ruined.
I think ex-Yugoslavia is a decent counterpoint to that. I don't know Afghanistan well enough to say whether they'd be better with the Taliban still in charge in Kabul (or whatever would have happened if the Americans hadn't invaded).
The Mail have a story that claims the Swedish parliament was the real target and attack could have been far far worse.
Hero security guard saved hundreds of lives and protected Swedish Parliament by driving van into the path of the terrorist's speeding lorry, forcing him to crash
Today, 9th April, is my family's bad luck day. On this day, although in different years, we lost both my Grandfathers, my Grandmother and my Great Grandmother.
The thing is we all know this is pure chance but it still doesn't stop us breathing a sigh of relief each year when this day is over .
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
I don't think that her policy, but it was depicted as such by the foamy mouthed Brexiteers. Certainly it was not a "white Europe" policy.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
As you can't even spell 'Gibraltar' correctly you'll excuse me if I don't think you've got any great insight to share.
Answer Fox's question rather than hiding behind the spelling of 32000 people who get our defence free. We should charge them. Gibraltar destroyed our bookies profits and was responsible for the removal of the betting tax from which our government earned millions.
Strategically we get far more out of Gibraltar than they take from us.
Someone said earlier that the Russian lies and misinformation over the demise of the plane that crashed in Ukraine makes it impossible to believe any Russian version of events in Syria.
However, the USA was caught out making up stuff about Iraq... and yet it seems that the same standards of doubt and disbelief are not applied to their version of events in Syria.
Sure I don't automatically believe the US. But if you are asking who do I believe is telling the truth here I'm inclined to be far more on the US side than the Russian side. The US is generally credible, the Russians are hardly ever so.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence" can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
"The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that "
You're assuming rational actors are involved. There are many potential explanations: he might had a nod and a wink from the Russians (who felt they could keep the US in check); desperation, or a rogue commander (remember, these weapons are tactical, and it is perfectly possible that commanders on the ground can decide on their use without having to ask central government because the window of opportunity for their use might be small).
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I think the proposal is limited to UK, as like post partition Ireland there is a need for "grandfather rights".
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
I don't think that her policy, but it was depicted as such by the foamy mouthed Brexiteers. Certainly it was not a "white Europe" policy.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
As you can't even spell 'Gibraltar' correctly you'll excuse me if I don't think you've got any great insight to share.
Answer Fox's question rather than hiding behind the spelling of 32000 people who get our defence free. We should charge them. Gibraltar destroyed our bookies profits and was responsible for the removal of the betting tax from which our government earned millions.
Strategically we get far more out of Gibraltar than they take from us.
"Gibraltar destroyed our bookies profits and was responsible for the removal of the betting tax from which our government earned millions"
As far as I know, there is no direct proof that Syrian or Russian planes dropped anything.
The Americans tracked Syrian airforce aircraft movements that tied up with the time of the attack, they apparently also detected the bombing itself on radar — and likely also from communication intercepts — and they found photographic evidence of the attack afterwards that fits the tracking.
It's bloody unlikely that it's merely an unfortunate coincidence that makes the Syrian regime look bad.
Have you seen the evidence ?
Why stop there, why not question wether anyone was actually hurt at all?
Someone said earlier that the Russian lies and misinformation over the demise of the plane that crashed in Ukraine makes it impossible to believe any Russian version of events in Syria.
However, the USA was caught out making up stuff about Iraq... and yet it seems that the same standards of doubt and disbelief are not applied to their version of events in Syria.
Sure I don't automatically believe the US. But if you are asking who do I believe is telling the truth here I'm inclined to be far more on the US side than the Russian side. The US is generally credible, the Russians are hardly ever so.
He isn't. What's your definition of 'winning' ?
Not losing and not in danger of being removed, probably.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
Look at his past actions: for example always denying he had chemical weapons, to using them and denying it, but also saying: "Ooops, we just found some chemical weapons under the sofa. Can you destroy them for us please?"
Today, 9th April, is my family's bad luck day. On this day, although in different years, we lost both my Grandfathers, my Grandmother and my Great Grandmother.
The thing is we all know this is pure chance but it still doesn't stop us breathing a sigh of relief each year when this day is over .
Should have said OT of course. I hate typing on a phone.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
But he would assume he had the protection of Russia so reprisals are unlikely. He needs the complete fear and subjugation of his people to survive. Therefore he will show them that he is untouchable.
Is that an equally valid alternative prognosis from yours?
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
Today, 9th April, is my family's bad luck day. On this day, although in different years, we lost both my Grandfathers, my Grandmother and my Great Grandmother.
The thing is we all know this is pure chance but it still doesn't stop us breathing a sigh of relief each year when this day is over .
Should have said OT of course. I hate typing on a phone.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
The Syrian regime has used them before without meaningful consequences, and since then Russia has become heavily involved in the war, and with "non-interventionist" Trump in the Whitehouse perhaps Assad felt he could get away with it. Of course Assad should have factored into his calculations that Trump might change his mind if someone persuasive spoke to him about the attack. Trump's defence and security appointees are a lot more hawkish than he is himself.
Kim Jong-un and his cronies are probably sweating about what all this means for their regime and nuclear weapons programme.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
Look at his past actions: for example always denying he had chemical weapons, to using them and denying it, but also saying: "Ooops, we just found some chemical weapons under the sofa. Can you destroy them for us please?"
You're assuming he's a rational actor.
Personally, I am assuming that he is an irrational nutcase politician
What's in Britain's best interest - a secular dictatorship or an islamist democracy?
The second, but it's not one of the available options.
I can't see any other outcome following the fall of Assad.
An Islamist dictatorship.
Yes and ten times worse than Assad
I wouldn't like to assume that either but it's a possibility.
Unfortunately previous experience shows us teh aftermath of our meddling is always a worse regime in office and country ruined.
I think ex-Yugoslavia is a decent counterpoint to that. I don't know Afghanistan well enough to say whether they'd be better with the Taliban still in charge in Kabul (or whatever would have happened if the Americans hadn't invaded).
Mr. Tokyo, I think the history of Afghanistan will show that it went to the dogs after the Russian invasion and never recovered. Before that date there was a functioning and growing middle-class, at least in the urban centres, and a fairly liberal regime (there are plenty of photos showing same on the internet). It was even a safe tourist destination for adventurous young people from Europe and the USA. The descent into the Islamist hell-hole it has become started with the Russians and the response, primarily by the USA and Pakistan to them. After the Russian withdrawal Pakistan continued to meddle for its own ends and just made matters even worse.
After 2001 the Septics ran a very successful campaign to drive out the Taliban and replace them with local factions, this was carried out mainly with air-power with very limited troops on the ground, they then took their eye off the ball for several years. The supreme folly came in 2006 when NATO at US urging decided to put in ground troops in large but insufficient numbers in order to protect reconstruction efforts. For example that bloody fool John Reid (the Defence Secretary) thought that one battalion of Paras could protect the whole of Helmand and hoped they could do it without a shot fired.
So stupidity and hubris on behalf of Western leaders, leading to a huge waste of blood and treasure, but not really an invasion in the sense of, say, the assault on Iraq. Afghanistan was already a bloody mess on its way back to the 7th century before the "West" got involved.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
But he would assume he had the protection of Russia so reprisals are unlikely. He needs the complete fear and subjugation of his people to survive. Therefore he will show them that he is untouchable.
Is that an equally valid alternative prognosis from yours?
Not really. Over the past 6-12 months he has been getting stronger and crushing his opposition, with the help and backing of Russia. There was therefore no immediate threat to his survival. The only threat to his survival would be if he "invited" Western reprisals by using chemical weapons. I am not saying he didn't use them, because in all honesty, none of us really know, because both the Russians and the Americans cannot be trusted to tell us the truth.
I just don't see why he would risk it when things were going so well for him.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
But he would assume he had the protection of Russia so reprisals are unlikely. He needs the complete fear and subjugation of his people to survive. Therefore he will show them that he is untouchable.
Is that an equally valid alternative prognosis from yours?
Not really. Over the past 6-12 months he has been getting stronger and crushing his opposition, with the help and backing of Russia. There was therefore no immediate threat to his survival. The only threat to his survival would be if he "invited" Western reprisals by using chemical weapons. I am not saying he didn't use them, because in all honesty, none of us really know, because both the Russians and the Americans cannot be trusted to tell us the truth.
I just don't see why he would risk it when things were going so well for him.
I see little significant progress in Syria by any of the sides (the only exception perhaps being the Kurds in their small area of interest).
The Syrian army has suffered massively from the five years of conflict, and his power lay in his control of the army (which was why he was in trouble when he lost the support of some).
Assad isn't 'winning' the war. And when he does, what does he do about the Kurds?
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
But he would assume he had the protection of Russia so reprisals are unlikely. He needs the complete fear and subjugation of his people to survive. Therefore he will show them that he is untouchable.
Is that an equally valid alternative prognosis from yours?
Not really. Over the past 6-12 months he has been getting stronger and crushing his opposition, with the help and backing of Russia. There was therefore no immediate threat to his survival. The only threat to his survival would be if he "invited" Western reprisals by using chemical weapons. I am not saying he didn't use them, because in all honesty, none of us really know, because both the Russians and the Americans cannot be trusted to tell us the truth.
I just don't see why he would risk it when things were going so well for him.
Assad is a Russia-Iranian puppet at this stage. The mass defections at the start of the uprising crippled his army and it never recovered. If the Iranians pull out then Assad has no forces left bar Russian air force - he'd have no boots on the ground and you can't rule a country without troops.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
The Syrian regime has used them before without meaningful consequences, and since then Russia has become heavily involved in the war, and with "non-interventionist" Trump in the Whitehouse perhaps Assad felt he could get away with it. Of course Assad should have factored into his calculations that Trump might change his mind if someone persuasive spoke to him about the attack. Trump's defence and security appointees are a lot more hawkish than he is himself.
Kim Jong-un and his cronies are probably sweating about what all this means for their regime and nuclear weapons programme.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
you are ignoring whether UKIP will even exist by the end of the year. Membership is plummeting. Elected reps are defecting or losing their seats. They have no money. They have no cause to rally to. Wouldn't be surprised if they collapsed.
Someone said earlier that the Russian lies and misinformation over the demise of the plane that crashed in Ukraine makes it impossible to believe any Russian version of events in Syria.
However, the USA was caught out making up stuff about Iraq... and yet it seems that the same standards of doubt and disbelief are not applied to their version of events in Syria.
Sure I don't automatically believe the US. But if you are asking who do I believe is telling the truth here I'm inclined to be far more on the US side than the Russian side. The US is generally credible, the Russians are hardly ever so.
I genuinely don't know which side to believe. "Evidence" can be doctored and "created" and I would imagine the USA is probably more adept at creating credible evidence than the Russians.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
"The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that "
You're assuming rational actors are involved. There are many potential explanations: he might had a nod and a wink from the Russians (who felt they could keep the US in check); desperation, or a rogue commander (remember, these weapons are tactical, and it is perfectly possible that commanders on the ground can decide on their use without having to ask central government because the window of opportunity for their use might be small).
"when he is actually winning the war"
He isn't. What's your definition of 'winning' ?
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the Civil war in Syria. I say he is winning the war because that is the general impression I have got from reading various articles over the pst few months.
And yes "winning" in a conflict like this is perhaps not an accurate description. There will no winners in this war, only losers.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Which is more or less the line from the Russian and Syrian governments. And essentially what has been said about previous chemical attacks, barrel bombings, and indiscriminate shelling. It's always the rebels, and never the Syrian armed forces and their allies.
Again, on the balance of probabilities, I would accept that barrel bombings and indiscriminate shelling were probably carried out by Assad, simply because it is pretty clear he has got away with that in the past, without international reprisals, but use of chemical weapons is the one thing that is pretty much certain to bring about a Western response, which is why I have my doubts as to whether he would be stupid enough to do that.
But he would assume he had the protection of Russia so reprisals are unlikely. He needs the complete fear and subjugation of his people to survive. Therefore he will show them that he is untouchable.
Is that an equally valid alternative prognosis from yours?
Not really. Over the past 6-12 months he has been getting stronger and crushing his opposition, with the help and backing of Russia. There was therefore no immediate threat to his survival. The only threat to his survival would be if he "invited" Western reprisals by using chemical weapons. I am not saying he didn't use them, because in all honesty, none of us really know, because both the Russians and the Americans cannot be trusted to tell us the truth.
I just don't see why he would risk it when things were going so well for him.
Definition of 'going well' That definition is based on whose uncontested facts? 'going well' in all areas or some? Against all protagonists or some?
I would suggest there is an element of blind faith in the assumption you make there.
Also, if it is all 'going well' and getting near the end game, it is more urgent to give that message that he can not be touched, now or in the future.
Did you see the article in the guardian, first reporter on the scene couldn't see any evidence of weapons storage in nearby bombed warehouse.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I take offence at that. I haven't voted Tory since 2010.
If you've voted Tory once, you are tainted forever I'm afraid.
If any one of your family has even voted Tory you get flagged on the system.
I think they only go back as far as your grandparents on the light-vetting though.
Are you related to Reinhard Heydrich by any chance?
You're seriously asking a Jew if I'm related to Heydrich?
You are Ken Livingstone in disguise and I claim my 5 Reichsmarks.
I am surprised. You appear to have so much in common - though I doubt that you are quite such a talented musician.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
you are ignoring whether UKIP will even exist by the end of the year. Membership is plummeting. Elected reps are defecting or losing their seats. They have no money. They have no cause to rally to. Wouldn't be surprised if they collapsed.
I think that unlikely - they'll want a remnant at the least should the inevitable cries of 'betrayal' at whatever deal May strikes actually have some resonance, which they can capitalise.
you are ignoring whether UKIP will even exist by the end of the year. Membership is plummeting. Elected reps are defecting or losing their seats. They have no money. They have no cause to rally to. Wouldn't be surprised if they collapsed.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
given they were flying out of the base the next day saus it all , either they were dummy missiles or they did not hit their targets. 59 should have been more than enough to destroy the place , not just knock a few bricks out of place. Not as if it was a small target.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
Nope. At the time of the Iran Iraq war when we were actively supporting the side using chemical weapons we cokkd gave taken concrete steps by withdrawing support for Saddam. Now dropping a few bombs on a strip of concrete just shows us to be hypocrites. It really is no surprise that most of the Middle East loath the West.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
"The only threat to his survival would be if he [Assad] "invited" Western reprisals by using chemical weapons"
Surely the lesson he would have drawn from 2013 is that he can use chemical weapons without fear of retaliation. Especially now that he has Russian troops actually on the ground.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
Nope. At the time of the Iran Iraq war when we were actively supporting the side using chemical weapons we cokkd gave taken concrete steps by withdrawing support for Saddam. Now dropping a few bombs on a strip of concrete just shows us to be hypocrites. It really is no surprise that most of the Middle East loath the West.
I don't think we should criticize today's politicians for doing the right thing because their predecessors did the (morally) wrong thing in the 1980s.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
Nope. At the time of the Iran Iraq war when we were actively supporting the side using chemical weapons we cokkd gave taken concrete steps by withdrawing support for Saddam. Now dropping a few bombs on a strip of concrete just shows us to be hypocrites. It really is no surprise that most of the Middle East loath the West.
That sounds nonsensical. I think we agree that we made a massive mistake in the 1980s by supporting Saddam after he used chemical weapons on the Iranians, yet alone his own people.
I fail to see how acting now makes us hypocrites. We made a mistake by not standing up for our values. That does not mean we should not stand up for them now. We'd be hypocritical if we continued to turn a blind eye.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
given they were flying out of the base the next day saus it all , either they were dummy missiles or they did not hit their targets. 59 should have been more than enough to destroy the place , not just knock a few bricks out of place. Not as if it was a small target.
You really are nothing more than a troll. Syrian and Russian TV, not US propaganda, has shown that the missiles scored direct hits on targets like aircraft shelters destroying everything inside. If the Syrians are dumb enough to reopen the base and carry out further chemical attacks they will simply invite round two.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Trolling or raving mad? It's hard to decide, but you surely are one or the other.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
Nope. At the time of the Iran Iraq war when we were actively supporting the side using chemical weapons we cokkd gave taken concrete steps by withdrawing support for Saddam. Now dropping a few bombs on a strip of concrete just shows us to be hypocrites. It really is no surprise that most of the Middle East loath the West.
I am getting on and my memory is not what it once was, but what support was the UK actually giving to Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war? I know that we had refused to build his chemical weapons production facilities (that was done by the West Germans) and I know that most of his military hardware was provided by the Russians (with a bit of help from the French). So in what way was the UK actively supporting him?
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
The cremlinology of this is a little bit amazing. There's a wild range of plausible explanations, and I don't think anyone can say with confidence which one is right.
1) The whole thing is for show, cooked up between Trump and the Russians, to make it look like he's doing something without doing something.
2) McMasters has taken control of the information that gets fed to Trump, is controlling the information he's fed, and is pushing him towards all-out war. (This is what Cernovich is saying, and it fits with Bannon getting kicked off the National Security Council.)
3) It's pretty much a continuation of the Obama policy which doesn't want too much involvement but wants to draw a line around chemical weapons, but Trump needed to make a gesture to show to show Putin and Assad that they can't just do whatever they like under the new administration.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
50% seems a little low, but I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected.
I still remember with bemusement the poster who claimed that every single cruise missile from a Russian bombardment must have hit the target. None could have failed ...
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Trolling or raving mad? It's hard to decide, but you surely are one or the other.
Whilst you are just an obnoxious little oik who is unable to take it. Go plait your pigtails jessie boy.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
Russian reports, the US claims 58 out of 59.
Surprise surprise and morons believe them would you know
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
Russian reports, the US claims 58 out of 59.
That sounds high to me, but not implausibly so given US experience with them. Although 'made it to target' might cover a multitude of sins ...
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
The cremlinology of this is a little bit amazing. There's a wild range of plausible explanations, and I don't think anyone can say with confidence which one is right.
1) The whole thing is for show, cooked up between Trump and the Russians, to make it look like he's doing something without doing something.
2) McMasters has taken control of the information that gets fed to Trump, is controlling the information he's fed, and is pushing him towards all-out war. (This is what Cernovich is saying, and it fits with Bannon getting kicked off the National Security Council.)
3) It's pretty much a continuation of the Obama policy which doesn't want too much involvement but wants to draw a line around chemical weapons, but Trump needed to make a gesture to show to show Putin and Assad that they can't just do whatever they like under the new administration.
Comments
Also a large amount of Brexit frothing in 2015-2016 was because several EU countries were not delivering a "white migrants only" policy.
And as an aside, how do you let the 'Syrians' decide who is in charge, given the massive population movements? What you really mean is let Assad decide who is in charge. I.e. himself.
My 'solution' is not an easy answer, or even a good one. But your 'solution' is the same as it was back in 2013, after which we've had three-and-a-half years more of bloodshed and instability in the region.
It's time to try something different. What matters here is the Syrian people, and it's quite clear that Assad does not give a damn about them.
(Edit; sorry EiT; I got the quoting mixed up)
Or, another perspective: that an EU citizen could claim protection from discrimination vis-a-vis a German national, but other people couldn't?
Ask Christians and other minorities in Syria, who do they back ?
Many FN areas used to be heavily Communist, and may well be open to Melenchon.
Are you referring to Merkel's open door to terrorists policy?
Now that we know it is Sarin, it can be made in a laboratory, leave it exposed and it will evaporate and affect people when they breathe in.
If you are saying that Americans know that it was Syria which did it, they were also "sure" Iraq had a mobile biological plant [ Colin Powell ], which turned out to be an Ice Cream van.
For Trump, this was an heaven sent opportunity. All this talk about Russian involvement in US elections, losing out to Obamacare, the crazy rightwingers behaving like a separate bunch, Bannon and Jared fighting like ferrets in a sack can be made to go off the air with one strike. He did just that. He does not need any proof. He does not even care to have one.
What skin of your nose is it if Fox jr and myself can continue to enjoy the benefits of the EU? These benefits may well be particularly popular with the Remainers of Gibralter...
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/china-post-race-analysis-2017.html
It's bloody unlikely that it's merely an unfortunate coincidence that makes the Syrian regime look bad.
Syrian refugee' felt oppressed' by Stop the War protest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39540340
Anyway, you are averting Edmund's question by raising superfluous points.
However, the USA was caught out making up stuff about Iraq... and yet it seems that the same standards of doubt and disbelief are not applied to their version of events in Syria.
Worse, they're not winning. Neither are any of the other sides, but we're in a stalemate where sides are making gains and losses.
"who I'm sure will be a total sweety"
As I acknowledged. Still, there'll be less blood on their hands than on Assads, and perhaps might be persuadable to a new direction that will be of benefit to the Syrian people.
You still haven't told us how why your preferred 'solution' would work to the benefit of the Syrian people, especially as it hasn't worked for the last few years. As an example, if Assad 'wins' (and it's debatable if anyone wins in this mess), then how would you guarantee the Kurds won't be tackled next by Assad and his lackeys? After all, they're a major part of the forces against him.
He'll want revenge.
You are Ken Livingstone in disguise and I claim my 5 Reichsmarks.
On the balance of probabilities, I am inclined to think Assad did not use chemical weapons in this instance. The deciding factor for me is to ask why he would be stupid enough to do that when he is actually winning the war over there and things are going pretty well for him. Only a fool would use chemical weapons at such a time - and Assad is not a fool.
On the other hand, if it wasn't Assad, who WOULD gain from a chemical attack incident? The rebels, who are losing consistently are deperate for a game-changer and intervention from the West.
Previously I think there was a small element of it not happening at all, but more likely now.
Now I hate taking a cynical viewpoint, but events in Syria have provided a small +EV move on my overall book.
His application for residency was rejected in June last year and he was being sought by immigration officials, police said.
He had been given four weeks to leave the country in December 2016, police chief Jonas Hysing told a press conference. The suspect then disappeared, and police began searching for him, Mr Hysing added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39545642
I see we are still in the farcical situation that the Swedish authorities won't name him.
Hero security guard saved hundreds of lives and protected Swedish Parliament by driving van into the path of the terrorist's speeding lorry, forcing him to crash
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4395034/Hero-driver-crashed-Swedish-terrorist-lorry.html
Today, 9th April, is my family's bad luck day. On this day, although in different years, we lost both my Grandfathers, my Grandmother and my Great Grandmother.
The thing is we all know this is pure chance but it still doesn't stop us breathing a sigh of relief each year when this day is over .
Don't let a complex and nuanced situation get in the way of your ranting, eh lads?
You're assuming rational actors are involved. There are many potential explanations: he might had a nod and a wink from the Russians (who felt they could keep the US in check); desperation, or a rogue commander (remember, these weapons are tactical, and it is perfectly possible that commanders on the ground can decide on their use without having to ask central government because the window of opportunity for their use might be small).
"when he is actually winning the war"
He isn't. What's your definition of 'winning' ?
They are both good things!
You're assuming he's a rational actor.
Is that an equally valid alternative prognosis from yours?
I'd use something stronger than "tosser".
So many errors, and my eyes don't see them!
Kim Jong-un and his cronies are probably sweating about what all this means for their regime and nuclear weapons programme.
After 2001 the Septics ran a very successful campaign to drive out the Taliban and replace them with local factions, this was carried out mainly with air-power with very limited troops on the ground, they then took their eye off the ball for several years. The supreme folly came in 2006 when NATO at US urging decided to put in ground troops in large but insufficient numbers in order to protect reconstruction efforts. For example that bloody fool John Reid (the Defence Secretary) thought that one battalion of Paras could protect the whole of Helmand and hoped they could do it without a shot fired.
So stupidity and hubris on behalf of Western leaders, leading to a huge waste of blood and treasure, but not really an invasion in the sense of, say, the assault on Iraq. Afghanistan was already a bloody mess on its way back to the 7th century before the "West" got involved.
I just don't see why he would risk it when things were going so well for him.
The Syrian army has suffered massively from the five years of conflict, and his power lay in his control of the army (which was why he was in trouble when he lost the support of some).
Assad isn't 'winning' the war. And when he does, what does he do about the Kurds?
And yes "winning" in a conflict like this is perhaps not an accurate description. There will no winners in this war, only losers.
That definition is based on whose uncontested facts?
'going well' in all areas or some?
Against all protagonists or some?
I would suggest there is an element of blind faith in the assumption you make there.
Also, if it is all 'going well' and getting near the end game, it is more urgent to give that message that he can not be touched, now or in the future.
Did you see the article in the guardian, first reporter on the scene couldn't see any evidence of weapons storage in nearby bombed warehouse.
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Surely the lesson he would have drawn from 2013 is that he can use chemical weapons without fear of retaliation. Especially now that he has Russian troops actually on the ground.
I fail to see how acting now makes us hypocrites. We made a mistake by not standing up for our values. That does not mean we should not stand up for them now. We'd be hypocritical if we continued to turn a blind eye.
1) The whole thing is for show, cooked up between Trump and the Russians, to make it look like he's doing something without doing something.
2) McMasters has taken control of the information that gets fed to Trump, is controlling the information he's fed, and is pushing him towards all-out war. (This is what Cernovich is saying, and it fits with Bannon getting kicked off the National Security Council.)
3) It's pretty much a continuation of the Obama policy which doesn't want too much involvement but wants to draw a line around chemical weapons, but Trump needed to make a gesture to show to show Putin and Assad that they can't just do whatever they like under the new administration.
4) Trump saw dying kids on TV.
I still remember with bemusement the poster who claimed that every single cruise missile from a Russian bombardment must have hit the target. None could have failed ...