PS IF this goes ahead, forget the UN. The US will have plenty of moral justification as well as attempted legal over to satisfy themselves and others involved and are just as likely to bypass as use it
Mr Jones Without heavy air strikes or ground forces I do not think the rebels will be able to topple the regime, naval bombardments can only do so much and Assad is too well entrenched. Obama will not commit to anything more
Incorrect. They can without direct active military support. Consistent supplies, intelligence and passive suppressive measures of Assads firepower would be critical,. however. Due to attrition this is possibly going to come down to an infantry war. Assad has had a manpower issue for some time, which is one of the main reasons why he cant shut this down.
Yokel After criticising George W over not going to war without getting full approval from the UN, Obama will not take any significant action other than lobbing the odd missile without UN approval. Libya had UN approval
This is not Iraq nor Libya, quite right and I fail to see any real interest in intervening. Assad may be a tyrant, but he has not invaded another sovereign nation unlike Saddam and unlike Gaddaffi he has not ordered a terrorist attack against UK citizens. The rebels it seems to me are filled with Al Qaeda sympathisers and have beheaded and killed their opponents in a brutal fashion and seem to me worse than Assad. Lob the odd missile if you must because of this chemical attack (if it really was Assad) but otherwise stay out!
"A controversial bridge in the German city of Dresden has opened despite objections from the UN heritage body Unesco, which removed Dresden from its World Heritage list in protest."
Yokel Well for the reasons below I hope we stay out and Obama is generally a ditherer on foreign policy, Assad can easily shore up his supplies from his allies in Iran and Russia in the meantime
Whether or not a site should be on the World Heritage List isnt really something that should be down to people to vote on. I mean Avery and I would campaign for the wonderful Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre to be included but just because we got a lot of people to agree with us doesnt mean it should be.
That would suggest then that the overt US action will indeed be very limited but it always would be.
The least contented target is the chemical stocks This can be done by stand off weapons but is tricky. The most dangerous stocks tend to be held as separate components so a strike would hopefully incinerate those with minimal consequences. If they are ready to go weapons then difficulties increase in case of toxic release. US assessments on this may be indicated by the time of day of any attack.
They could also add with less potential consequence:
-some military infrastructure designed to make Assad lose a finger rather than an arm or leg off his military capability. For example, taking out the ability to operate from the major airbases (some of those locations are also adjacent to the chemical weapons key stores). No aircraft hit but airfields get cratered. All fixable but extremely painful short term and no ultimate military balance change, perhaps.
-Air defences as warning that we can come right through next time, even though they can pretty much do that now. This has no change on the military balance
-Some of the decision making and operational apparatus believed to have launched the chemical weapons attack, hit the physical units involved, take out some heavy rockets held by such units, take out a fuel depot and so on. Painful but not fatal.
What the world has missed is the indirect methods which the US has switched back on recently. e.g training & assisting chosen rebels (see my recent post on goings on in Jordan). There is the 'no fly zone without any planes' using the AA missiles in Jordan and Turkey to shoot down Syrian aircraft in Syrian airspace if they go into that zone(or zones one in the South and one in the North). The Syrian airforce has limited ability to counter it.
In addition the US has been somewhat effective in lobbying other 3rd parties not to get too involved, Qatar in particular got shin kicked, the Saudis have come under pressure too, though there are examples of cooperative US/Saudi actions. Bringing those guys fully into the tent is again a one step removed move. The Turkish too represent a player who have hesitated many many times, partially due to lack of US support. The Turks may have to have a role given some of the the options on the table.
Everything carries risk and Obama doesn't do risk, the guy is a political wonk but within an extreme caution approach these are all viable.
AndyJS - Indeed, looks like Abbott will win confortably, though Rudd will have saved the ALP from a Gillard meltdown (though he may lose his own seat in the process)
Women who supported Gillard when she ran Labor have left the fold and that is the key difference, Women are still around a third of people for Labor, not enough.
Andy JS If the ALP lose probably best Rudd loses his seat then the ALP can make a fresh start with neither Rudd nor Gillard in parliament, Rudd will have served his purpose of avoiding an ALP meltdown
Meltdown is likely, with Rudd having major trust issues. It was only a few months ago he promised never to run against Gillard and whaddyaknow?
On topic, I have always assumed the rate would be between 65 and 70%.
Attempts to paint independence as an ogre have recently appeared desperate and increasingly failed as people think about it more. Many say, whatever happens, happens.
The best hope for the UK is a strong propagandist fear campaign the last two or three weeks on some minor issues to keep the real issues out of the media. The 2011 Scottish election attempted this, claiming Salmond was a stooge for Murdoch as some of his journalists had the temerity late on in campaigns to support the SNP at that election over Labour. That Labour had met Murdoch on multiple occasions had Salmond had met him only occasionally as a key Scottish employer was hardly mentioned of course. He met Murdoch therefore he had to be smeared. The Beeb and the Scottish papers, sctually controlled from England, will be on fukk megaphone scare alert. If they go too far it will push even gullible people over the edge so fine line needed.
48 % of people would vote for the SNP at this time in Scottish elections, which along with the Greens means around 54% of voters support indy parties. This may not be known by PBers but is an accurate stat as of today.
Assuming 35% of Scots are motivated and vote for indy as I suspect, the question is whether 35% can be bothered to vote No when many have no opinion either way as rule from London under the Tories is not a good reason to get off the couch! If 75% turnout I suspect NO will win, just, but if under 70% then I think YES will win as that 35% YES is hardcore and nailed on.
Comments
Cameron plus 87
Clegg plus 36
Miliband plus 7
I try to be a reasonable man and to shun all forms of conflict.
May I suggest you take this matter up directly with Sir Roderick who is claiming 40%?
See "About 1.4 times as reliable..." downthread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23825738
"A controversial bridge in the German city of Dresden has opened despite objections from the UN heritage body Unesco, which removed Dresden from its World Heritage list in protest."
That would suggest then that the overt US action will indeed be very limited but it always would be.
The least contented target is the chemical stocks This can be done by stand off weapons but is tricky. The most dangerous stocks tend to be held as separate components so a strike would hopefully incinerate those with minimal consequences. If they are ready to go weapons then difficulties increase in case of toxic release. US assessments on this may be indicated by the time of day of any attack.
They could also add with less potential consequence:
-some military infrastructure designed to make Assad lose a finger rather than an arm or leg off his military capability. For example, taking out the ability to operate from the major airbases (some of those locations are also adjacent to the chemical weapons key stores). No aircraft hit but airfields get cratered. All fixable but extremely painful short term and no ultimate military balance change, perhaps.
-Air defences as warning that we can come right through next time, even though they can pretty much do that now. This has no change on the military balance
-Some of the decision making and operational apparatus believed to have launched the chemical weapons attack, hit the physical units involved, take out some heavy rockets held by such units, take out a fuel depot and so on. Painful but not fatal.
What the world has missed is the indirect methods which the US has switched back on recently. e.g training & assisting chosen rebels (see my recent post on goings on in Jordan). There is the 'no fly zone without any planes' using the AA missiles in Jordan and Turkey to shoot down Syrian aircraft in Syrian airspace if they go into that zone(or zones one in the South and one in the North). The Syrian airforce has limited ability to counter it.
In addition the US has been somewhat effective in lobbying other 3rd parties not to get too involved, Qatar in particular got shin kicked, the Saudis have come under pressure too, though there are examples of cooperative US/Saudi actions. Bringing those guys fully into the tent is again a one step removed move. The Turkish too represent a player who have hesitated many many times, partially due to lack of US support. The Turks may have to have a role given some of the the options on the table.
Everything carries risk and Obama doesn't do risk, the guy is a political wonk but within an extreme caution approach these are all viable.
Attempts to paint independence as an ogre have recently appeared desperate and increasingly failed as people think about it more. Many say, whatever happens, happens.
The best hope for the UK is a strong propagandist fear campaign the last two or three weeks on some minor issues to keep the real issues out of the media. The 2011 Scottish election attempted this, claiming Salmond was a stooge for Murdoch as some of his journalists had the temerity late on in campaigns to support the SNP at that election over Labour. That Labour had met Murdoch on multiple occasions had Salmond had met him only occasionally as a key Scottish employer was hardly mentioned of course. He met Murdoch therefore he had to be smeared.
The Beeb and the Scottish papers, sctually controlled from England, will be on fukk megaphone scare alert. If they go too far it will push even gullible people over the edge so fine line needed.
48 % of people would vote for the SNP at this time in Scottish elections, which along with the Greens means around 54% of voters support indy parties. This may not be known by PBers but is an accurate stat as of today.
Assuming 35% of Scots are motivated and vote for indy as I suspect, the question is whether 35% can be bothered to vote No when many have no opinion either way as rule from London under the Tories is not a good reason to get off the couch!
If 75% turnout I suspect NO will win, just, but if under 70% then I think YES will win as that 35% YES is hardcore and nailed on.