It must be pretty miserable being a world leader at times like this.
Neither Cameron or Obama want to strike Syria. There is nothing militarily to be gained from it and it is unlikely to make the life of any Syrian civilian any better. The only upside is the winning of the diplomatic arm-wrestle against an increasingly wayward Putin.
But the alternative of doing nothing is really awful too.
What if Cameron and Obama turn their backs on it and tell the horrible truth, that in terms of the lesser of two evils, they'd prefer Assad in charge than to create a situation worse than that in Iraq. And then, through their lack of interest, Assad goes on to gas thousands or tens of thousands, or even a hundred thousand civilians.
How awful would that be?
It's a cruel, awful situation for everyone. I wouldn't want to be making the decisions on it.
Forget predistribution and living standards. If Labour does not stand forcefully for the children denied all dreams and gassed as they slept, then it stands for nothing.
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
What is the goal of military action, though? Is it just aimed at stopping any more chemical attacks? Is it regime change? Where will it stop, and how far should we go?
The primary goal of military action is to assert and demonstrate the will of the international powers to take interventionary action if and when the Chemical Weapons Convention is breached.
It avoids the US "red line" bluff being called and sets precedents for intervention in the event of other nations producing, storing or using prohibited chemical weapons, or, more widely, breaching obligations under other treaties dealing with weapons of mass destruction. In particular, it has relevance for the alleged nuclear weapons programmes of North Korea and Iran.
A secondary goal is to demonstrate the will of the "western powers" to act independently of the UNSC when Russia and China use their veto powers 'unreasonably'. The tactics though may be force Russia and China into co-operation within the UNSC rather than allow the US and its allies to bypass the UN.
I doubt whether there are any firm military objectives. The demonstration of the power, will and capability to intervene is all that is needed. From the military perspective, this will be more about limiting the scope of the intervention to avoid additional civilian casualties and the perception that the western powers are seeking to take sides in the Syrian Civil War.
The best outcome of the current discussions would be for Russia to secure agreement by the Assad regime to enter immediately into negotiations for a political settlement and for the Russians and Chinese to agree to work with the US, UK and France within the UNSC to resolve the chemical weapons issue.
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Whilst the gassing is of course dreadful, whoever did it, I simply struggle with why we need to get involved. Syria I just don't see as being part of our strategic interests and it's clearly not a friend and ally. My instinct says stay well clear.
Say this debate was about intervening in Rwanda in 1994 (not that there was such a debate), and we had stayed out on the basis of your instinct, and then what happened in Rwanda, happened, how good would you feel about it? There are times when you just have to say feck it, enough is enough.
Declassified #CIA documents reveal that 25years ago US gave Saddam Hussein blessing to use toxins against Iranians http://bit.ly/17gssSa
Where did Saddam get those Weapons?
Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
People that use WMD on civilians deserve to bombed back to the stone age.
But wouldn't that risk killing more innocent people than were killed by the WMD??
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
Possibly.
I don't think Cameron and Obama will be as poor as Blair and Bush when it comes to planning for the post war phase.
So its a full scale invasion and regime change you're after, then TSE.
Just regime change
But can that be done in Syria without a full scale invasion? I think Syria might be a tougher nut to crack than Libya.
Don't know, hope so.
I'm hoping for a lottery win, pay off my mortgage,credit cards and buy the Mrs an Evoque. As an aside, my wife is having second thoughts about Depeche Mode in November, having heard their latest album, she calls them Depressed Mode!
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Whilst the gassing is of course dreadful, whoever did it, I simply struggle with why we need to get involved. Syria I just don't see as being part of our strategic interests and it's clearly not a friend and ally. My instinct says stay well clear.
Say this debate was about intervening in Rwanda in 1994 (not that there was such a debate), and we had stayed out on the basis of your instinct, and then what happened in Rwanda, happened, how good would you feel about it? There are times when you just have to say feck it, enough is enough.
Well I'd feel bad as anyone would, but we can't fight everyone's fight can we? If Assad were ( as an example) gassing Denmarrk as a friend and neighbour I'd say bomb him into the Stone Age but he's not. Nor do we have any real interest in Syria. It's a shame, it's a crap situation but we cannot police the whole world righting its wrongs otherwise we'd be weighing in all over the place and its not practical let alone right that we do.
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
People that use WMD on civilians deserve to bombed back to the stone age.
But wouldn't that risk killing more innocent people than were killed by the WMD??
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
Possibly.
I don't think Cameron and Obama will be as poor as Blair and Bush when it comes to planning for the post war phase.
So its a full scale invasion and regime change you're after, then TSE.
Just regime change
But can that be done in Syria without a full scale invasion? I think Syria might be a tougher nut to crack than Libya.
Don't know, hope so.
I'm hoping for a lottery win, pay off my mortgage,credit cards and buy the Mrs an Evoque. As an aside, my wife is having second thoughts about Depeche Mode in November, having heard their latest album, she calls them Depressed Mode!
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
People that use WMD on civilians deserve to bombed back to the stone age.
But wouldn't that risk killing more innocent people than were killed by the WMD??
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
Thanks, as you know I, hardly go on Twitter these days, I spend far too much time on here
Oh I love Twitter - much wittier than PB now. Several laughs a minute. A UFO nut just bitched about me tweaking her tweet as *ungrammatical* = talk about missing the point.
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
People that use WMD on civilians deserve to bombed back to the stone age.
But wouldn't that risk killing more innocent people than were killed by the WMD??
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
Possibly.
I don't think Cameron and Obama will be as poor as Blair and Bush when it comes to planning for the post war phase.
So its a full scale invasion and regime change you're after, then TSE.
Just regime change
But can that be done in Syria without a full scale invasion? I think Syria might be a tougher nut to crack than Libya.
Don't know, hope so.
I'm hoping for a lottery win, pay off my mortgage,credit cards and buy the Mrs an Evoque. As an aside, my wife is having second thoughts about Depeche Mode in November, having heard their latest album, she calls them Depressed Mode!
Depeche Mode live are amazing
I know, having seen them times. She, on the other hand is a bit of a head banger. I've bought the tickets and paid for the hotel, so she's going, like it or not!
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
People that use WMD on civilians deserve to bombed back to the stone age.
But wouldn't that risk killing more innocent people than were killed by the WMD??
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
Possibly.
I don't think Cameron and Obama will be as poor as Blair and Bush when it comes to planning for the post war phase.
So its a full scale invasion and regime change you're after, then TSE.
Just regime change
But can that be done in Syria without a full scale invasion? I think Syria might be a tougher nut to crack than Libya.
Don't know, hope so.
I'm hoping for a lottery win, pay off my mortgage,credit cards and buy the Mrs an Evoque. As an aside, my wife is having second thoughts about Depeche Mode in November, having heard their latest album, she calls them Depressed Mode!
Nonsense: "Should be Higher" is so uplifting! "Soothe My Soul" is classic pervy DM
Seeing as it's a war-zone with shelling i'd expect the civilians cram into basements for shelter and sleep. You could create a DIY fake chemical attack simply by backing up a lorry and using the exhaust fumes. Anyone check the bodies for carbon monoxide poisoning?
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
People that use WMD on civilians deserve to bombed back to the stone age.
But wouldn't that risk killing more innocent people than were killed by the WMD??
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
Possibly.
I don't think Cameron and Obama will be as poor as Blair and Bush when it comes to planning for the post war phase.
So its a full scale invasion and regime change you're after, then TSE.
Just regime change
But can that be done in Syria without a full scale invasion? I think Syria might be a tougher nut to crack than Libya.
Don't know, hope so.
I'm hoping for a lottery win, pay off my mortgage,credit cards and buy the Mrs an Evoque. As an aside, my wife is having second thoughts about Depeche Mode in November, having heard their latest album, she calls them Depressed Mode!
Depeche Mode live are amazing
I know, having seen them times. She, on the other hand is a bit of a head banger. I've bought the tickets and paid for the hotel, so she's going, like it or not!
People seem be having difficulty differetiating between an air-policing action (planned for Syria, as in Libya) and an armoured-division deployment and subsequent failed occupation (c.f. Iraq). Needless to say one is unsurprised....
I think we can all differentiate. I'd suggest that sane people are scared that the former might beget the latter.
It didn't in Libya.
One of the things about Libya is it's a lot of little tribes but all pretty much from the same ethnic group and religion. The conflict in Libya was mainly about different coalitions of tribes fighting over access to the oil money. Syria is also made up of lots of little tribes but they coalesce around their respective ethno-sectarian group so it's a lot more life or death for the losers.
I haven't seen the PB Hodges quoting their hero recently, has the one eyed wonder fell under a bus, or has he found another subject to bore people to death?
Am I the only PBer in favour of military action in Syria?
Why are you in favour?
People that use WMD on civilians deserve to bombed back to the stone age.
But wouldn't that risk killing more innocent people than were killed by the WMD??
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
Possibly.
I don't think Cameron and Obama will be as poor as Blair and Bush when it comes to planning for the post war phase.
So its a full scale invasion and regime change you're after, then TSE.
Just regime change
But can that be done in Syria without a full scale invasion? I think Syria might be a tougher nut to crack than Libya.
Don't know, hope so.
I'm hoping for a lottery win, pay off my mortgage,credit cards and buy the Mrs an Evoque. As an aside, my wife is having second thoughts about Depeche Mode in November, having heard their latest album, she calls them Depressed Mode!
I favour intervention in Syria. I feel we've reached the point you can look them int he eye and tell them why risking British lives (although at this stage, I would favour missiles) is necessary, or the risk of Syrian civilian casualties.
Seeing as it's a war-zone with shelling i'd expect the civilians cram into basements for shelter and sleep. You could create a DIY fake chemical attack simply by backing up a lorry and using the exhaust fumes. Anyone check the bodies for carbon monoxide poisoning?
If the rebels had chemical weapons, wouldn't they be more likely to use them against the regime? After all, it wouldn't be long before some delusional conspiracy theorist would claim the regime had done it to themselves.
Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Scary though it is, this has become a cock-waving contest between the super-powers. America has made its move and is daring Russia to blink. And I think Russia probably will blink. Assad is their only solid ally in the Middle East and the Russians know America has the power to remove him very quickly, destabilising the country but robbing Russia of their ally in the process. A demonstration of willingness to act is probably a calculated move by the Americans for Russia to speak some sense to Assad, or else.
I haven't seen the PB Hodges quoting their hero recently, has the one eyed wonder fell under a bus, or has he found another subject to bore people to death?
I haven't seen the PB Hodges quoting their hero recently, has the one eyed wonder fell under a bus, or has he found another subject to bore people to death?
Seeing as it's a war-zone with shelling i'd expect the civilians cram into basements for shelter and sleep. You could create a DIY fake chemical attack simply by backing up a lorry and using the exhaust fumes. Anyone check the bodies for carbon monoxide poisoning?
If the rebels had chemical weapons, wouldn't they be more likely to use them against the regime? After all, it wouldn't be long before some delusional conspiracy theorist would claim the regime had done it to themselves.
Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
I wouldn't. I'd use them to try and get half a dozen US aircraft carriers on my side.
As you say the simplest explanations are the most likely
I haven't seen the PB Hodges quoting their hero recently, has the one eyed wonder fell under a bus, or has he found another subject to bore people to death?
Gordon Brown hasn't fallen under a bus has he? I know he has been anonymous and essentially being paid while AWOL, but under a bus!
I haven't seen the PB Hodges quoting their hero recently, has the one eyed wonder fell under a bus, or has he found another subject to bore people to death?
Gordon Brown hasn't fallen under a bus has he? I know he has been anonymous and essentially being paid while AWOL, but under a bus!
**** Ready to post faux outrage at one eye mention ****
Not seen either Battlestar Galactica series. I think I have a very fuzzy memory of the first series, but that was probably a repeat, and it's immensely vague.
Is Farage saying we should wait for confirmation of who was responsible, or is he against intervention even if it can be shown that Assad's forces were reponsible?
So we intervened in Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda from there.
Now we're going to intervene in Syria on the same side as Al Qaeda.
How soon before we're intervening in Syria to remove the Al Qaeda bases which were established because of our intervention?
It finishes the full circle.
We [ the CIA actually ] helped the Mujahiddin go to Afghanistan in the first place. It included a young idealist by the name of Osama Bin Laden. Of course, the Ruskies were the enemy then.
Is Farage saying we should wait for confirmation of who was responsible, or is he against intervention even if it can be shown that Assad's forces were reponsible?
Nigel Farage has warned Britain cannot go to war with Syria "on a whim," stating "horrible though it is, there is nothing the British military can do to make things better."
In a sensational interview on the state-run TV channel Russia Today, the UK Independence Party leader slammed calls for intervention over the escalating crisis, and warned Britain's "keenness" for involvement "could lead to something far bigger."
Mr. Rag, you would be wise not to judge a man by his appearance. Alexander had a twisted neck, Caesar pioneered the combover, and Hannibal (as mentioned below) only had the one eye.
On a related note: Alexander the Great's eyes were different colours.
Bah, that means I need to update the morning thread once again.
Do you have a link?
'.and majority of voters for all parties also oppose Syria missile strikes; Tories 45-33%, Labour 54-26%, Lib Dems 47-27%, UKIP 68-22%.' tom newtondunn
Bah, that means I need to update the morning thread once again.
Do you have a link?
'.and majority of voters for all parties also oppose Syria missile strikes; Tories 45-33%, Labour 54-26%, Lib Dems 47-27%, UKIP 68-22%.' tom newtondunn
Mr. Rag, you would be wise not to judge a man by his appearance. Alexander had a twisted neck, Caesar pioneered the combover, and Hannibal (as mentioned below) only had the one eye.
On a related note: Alexander the Great's eyes were different colours.
Not judging Hodges by his appearance, just by his repetitive articles. I am sure he will be back to his boring best soon.
So we intervened in Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda from there.
Now we're going to intervene in Syria on the same side as Al Qaeda.
How soon before we're intervening in Syria to remove the Al Qaeda bases which were established because of our intervention?
It finishes the full circle.
We [ the CIA actually ] helped the Mujahiddin go to Afghanistan in the first place. It included a young idealist by the name of Osama Bin Laden. Of course, the Ruskies were the enemy then.
You almost forgot the part not very long ago at all when the U.S. and the west rendered prisoners to Assad for him to torture. Of course that back when he was a 'good bad guy', or whatever it is they call their numerous middle east dictator 'frenemies'. (used to just be "our bastard" IIRC)
Been having a good laugh at Liverpool tonight. Excellent preparation for the weekend.
But I haven't recovered from the gloom of last night. If we play with that degree of caution on a regular basis we will be winning nothing. Moyes was a very poor choice and he already looks out of his depth.
And we still don't have an attacking midfielder worth his salt. Bah.
Case in point: Halabja, 1988 - 5000 civilian deaths Invasion of Iraq, 2003 - far more than 5000 civilian deaths.
What had Halabja to do with the 2003 Iraq invasion?
WMD was the casus belli for 2003.
Golly, 15 years to build up a head of moral outrage. The USA with the docile complicity of UK governments was blaming Iran for Halabja till the mid nineties (not that that got them off their lardy asses to do anything about it). Is casus belli shorthand for believing any old CIA lies when it suits?
Brits also still oppose enforcing a no-fly-zone by 42-33%, sending defensive weapons by 50-23%, sending full-scale weapons including tanks by 61-13%, and deploying UK troops by 74% to 9%.
I think Farage has got this right. Opposing an intervention in a mid east war tends to be vindicated very quickly. Getting involved in a mid east war tends to destroy an otherwise successful political career.
It is interesting that Clegg and Cameron both used the words Legal and Proportionate. As there is no case that an intervention is self defense then it is most likely an illegal war without a UN resolution, which surely is not going to happen.
Rather than squaring up to Russia, we should be trying to get them onside. Assad would fall quickly without Russian backing. Getting the sensible wing of the FSA to agree to continued Russian naval base may be a good start. The Russians would drop Assad if they could have continuing influence, and no British forces required...
Been having a good laugh at Liverpool tonight. Excellent preparation for the weekend.
But I haven't recovered from the gloom of last night. If we play with that degree of caution on a regular basis we will be winning nothing. Moyes was a very poor choice and he already looks out of his depth.
And we still don't have an attacking midfielder worth his salt. Bah.
Picking up earlier comments on the thread we studied "I have a dream" in my advocacy training. It is indeed all about repetition and rhythm. Quite brilliant but why anyone would want others to read out the words is beyond me.
It is almost as daft as recalling Parliament for a debate on bombing an arab country that has nothing to do with us. I really cannot see any upside for Cameron in this. Difficult problem, not easy to deal with but keeping the head down was the sensible option.
America has made its move and is daring Russia to blink. And I think Russia probably will blink.
Fenster
When I first visited Moscow on business in the mid 1980s, I met with the head of the representative office of one of the UK's largest banks. I was hoping for advice on doing business in a country which was very different from any I had encountered before.
'Alan' arrived late for our appointment following a very frustrating meeting with Vnesheconombank (The USSR Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs). He had been negotiating an agreement with the bank for nearly two years and had been told, no doubt for the umpteenth time, that the papers would be signed that morning. They weren't. And the reason given by his Russian counterpart was that Alan had reneged on a promise made at a previous meeting to provide Vnesheconombank with a box of a dozen liquid Tippex bottles.
But all this digresses from the main story. What Alan told me was never to take at face value any position taken by a Russian counterpart. It could change to its diametric opposite at any time and would do so often during the negotiation without any logical consistency. When I asked whether anything ever got agreed in Russia, he answered:
"Oh Yes! But never before the Russians are ready to agree. What happens is that you go into a small room for a few hours and fight. Blood is spilt all over the walls. And just when you think nothing will ever be agreed, you will be told that everything has. Then all will exit the room smiling. And the Russians will always keep to the agreement whatever conflicting positions they might have taken during the negotiation."
This was as good as any advice I got in twenty years of doing business in both communist and 'democratic' Russia. I experienced the formula many times.
So the prospects of a volte-face by the Russians on Syria are quite reasonable. When Putin decides to change every Russian official will follow in a snap. There will be a quick and hard negotiation with the US and a new position announced. And the Russians will go about their business smiling and denying that any prior contrary position had ever been taken.
Communists or not, the Russians haven't and won't change.
Is Farage saying we should wait for confirmation of who was responsible, or is he against intervention even if it can be shown that Assad's forces were reponsible?
He's against, even then.
"My view is that what we’ve done in Afghanistan, in Iraq for many decades, whenever Brittan got involved in the Middle East, we tend to make thing worse, not better, and horrible though it is, ghastly, there are some crimes that are being committed and there is nothing the British military can do, in my view, to make things better. "
Cameron's bacon cheeks all over the screen on the news....urgh!
Get some make up on.
Guessing, you're not quite the picture of physical perfection that you seem to feel that anyone in the public eye should be. Give it a rest, it makes you look a bit of a tit.
Not seen either Battlestar Galactica series. I think I have a very fuzzy memory of the first series, but that was probably a repeat, and it's immensely vague.
The reimagineered series was much better than the first as it actually had characters and plots. AFAICR (and it was before my time) the original series was TV's reaction to Star Wars. It got particularly pants when they finally reached Earth for the final season.
As, coincidentally enough, did the reimagineered series.
Been having a good laugh at Liverpool tonight. Excellent preparation for the weekend.
But I haven't recovered from the gloom of last night. If we play with that degree of caution on a regular basis we will be winning nothing. Moyes was a very poor choice and he already looks out of his depth.
And we still don't have an attacking midfielder worth his salt. Bah.
Kagawa
One brilliant game a year doesn't cut it I am afraid.
Syria. I reported about 5pm or so today that there was a not often seen flight from Latakia Airport to Beirut airport.
Lebanese media sources report indeed that families of Syrian officials flew into Beirut and dispersed.
There are also reports a plane has turned up in Tehran with some of Assads family. No idea if he's on it.
In Damascus the rush to prepare for strikes has continued with the usual move of putting artillery in the middle of blocks of flats, many troops have eschewed armoured gear for vans.
Clearly no-one expects this thing to be stopped at the last.
Cameron's bacon cheeks all over the screen on the news....urgh!
Get some make up on.
Guessing, you're not quite the picture of physical perfection that you seem to feel that anyone in the public eye should be. Give it a rest, it makes you look a bit of a tit.
Now now, just commenting on his Danish complexion.....comes across as though he is all flustered.
Bah, that means I need to update the morning thread once again.
Do you have a link?
'.and majority of voters for all parties also oppose Syria missile strikes; Tories 45-33%, Labour 54-26%, Lib Dems 47-27%, UKIP 68-22%.' tom newtondunn
The Sandalistas more gung ho than Labour supporters. Hmmm.
Mr. Rag, you would be wise not to judge a man by his appearance. Alexander had a twisted neck, Caesar pioneered the combover, and Hannibal (as mentioned below) only had the one eye.
On a related note: Alexander the Great's eyes were different colours.
Not judging Hodges by his appearance, just by his repetitive articles. I am sure he will be back to his boring best soon.
Your own posts seem to be a tad on the repetitive side. You don't even cut it as a troll. Give up.
I've been in favour of military strikes against Syria since the details of the chemical weapon attacks have come out, and am pleased the US looks to be moving to this course of action.
My reasoning is quite simple: the Syrian regime has been trying to push the boundaries of what it can get away with for months now - starting off with small chemical attacks, using illegal SCUD missiles against civilian populations and building up to the most recent atrocity. Doing nothing in response to this gives Assad a free reign to carry on using chemical weapons against civilians. Sanctions and political solutions are meaningless in the middle of a long-running civil war. The only thing the West can do to deter the regime from repeating their actions are strikes that hurt, even if they do not alter the balance of the war.
It is more of a warning shot / a precedent for future regimes considering the use of chemical weapons, than anything analogous to the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts. So, speaking a Lib Dem who opposed Iraq, I'm very much in favour of the limited military action being discussed.
Mr. Rag, you would be wise not to judge a man by his appearance. Alexander had a twisted neck, Caesar pioneered the combover, and Hannibal (as mentioned below) only had the one eye.
On a related note: Alexander the Great's eyes were different colours.
Not judging Hodges by his appearance, just by his repetitive articles. I am sure he will be back to his boring best soon.
Your own posts seem to be a tad on the repetitive side. You don't even cut it as a troll. Give up.
Oh dear, the PB Hodges close rank.I am all offended.
I've been in favour of military strikes against Syria since the details of the chemical weapon attacks have come out, and am pleased the US looks to be moving to this course of action.
My reasoning is quite simple: the Syrian regime has been trying to push the boundaries of what it can get away with for months now - starting off with small chemical attacks, using illegal SCUD missiles against civilian populations and building up to the most recent atrocity. Doing nothing in response to this gives Assad a free reign to carry on using chemical weapons against civilians. Sanctions and political solutions are meaningless in the middle of a long-running civil war. The only thing the West can do to deter the regime from repeating their actions are strikes that hurt, even if they do not alter the balance of the war.
It is more of a warning shot / a precedent for future regimes considering the use of chemical weapons, than anything analogous to the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts. So, speaking a Lib Dem who opposed Iraq, I'm very much in favour of the limited military action being discussed.
Been having a good laugh at Liverpool tonight. Excellent preparation for the weekend.
But I haven't recovered from the gloom of last night. If we play with that degree of caution on a regular basis we will be winning nothing. Moyes was a very poor choice and he already looks out of his depth.
And we still don't have an attacking midfielder worth his salt. Bah.
Kagawa
One brilliant game a year doesn't cut it I am afraid.
Two brilliant years in a much better side than United does
"Kagawa is arguably too sophisticated for the Premier League. He excelled in the Bundesliga, the best league on the continent the last three years, showcasing the kind of enviable energy and seamless passing which elevated Germany's two biggest clubs to the Champions League final this year. English football's regression, however, continues and Kagawa is a casualty of the backward-thinking, as the emphasis on a player's build rather than their ability dominates."
He came with an excellent reputation and there has been the odd flash but not nearly enough. Many games he has been annoymous. Fabregas would have been a good option but that looks like it was never on and he probably used MU to get assurances of game time. Ditto Ronaldo with his new contract. Moyes has been played for a fool this summer and it is ominous.
All good things come to an end. Ask Labour re Blair.
Comments
Neither Cameron or Obama want to strike Syria. There is nothing militarily to be gained from it and it is unlikely to make the life of any Syrian civilian any better. The only upside is the winning of the diplomatic arm-wrestle against an increasingly wayward Putin.
But the alternative of doing nothing is really awful too.
What if Cameron and Obama turn their backs on it and tell the horrible truth, that in terms of the lesser of two evils, they'd prefer Assad in charge than to create a situation worse than that in Iraq. And then, through their lack of interest, Assad goes on to gas thousands or tens of thousands, or even a hundred thousand civilians.
How awful would that be?
It's a cruel, awful situation for everyone. I wouldn't want to be making the decisions on it.
Forget predistribution and living standards. If Labour does not stand forcefully for the children denied all dreams and gassed as they slept, then it stands for nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10268370/Labour-must-fight-this-war-not-the-last-one.html
It avoids the US "red line" bluff being called and sets precedents for intervention in the event of other nations producing, storing or using prohibited chemical weapons, or, more widely, breaching obligations under other treaties dealing with weapons of mass destruction. In particular, it has relevance for the alleged nuclear weapons programmes of North Korea and Iran.
A secondary goal is to demonstrate the will of the "western powers" to act independently of the UNSC when Russia and China use their veto powers 'unreasonably'. The tactics though may be force Russia and China into co-operation within the UNSC rather than allow the US and its allies to bypass the UN.
I doubt whether there are any firm military objectives. The demonstration of the power, will and capability to intervene is all that is needed. From the military perspective, this will be more about limiting the scope of the intervention to avoid additional civilian casualties and the perception that the western powers are seeking to take sides in the Syrian Civil War.
The best outcome of the current discussions would be for Russia to secure agreement by the Assad regime to enter immediately into negotiations for a political settlement and for the Russians and Chinese to agree to work with the US, UK and France within the UNSC to resolve the chemical weapons issue.
than Libya.
Yes, it's those loveable NeoCon scamps again.
But at least lessons were learned etc.
How many people can say that, I wonder?
As an aside, my wife is having second thoughts about Depeche Mode in November, having heard their latest album, she calls them Depressed Mode!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Depeche_Mode_O2_15_12_09_wide.jpg
Unfortunately, this year I booked late and was stuck at the far side of the auditorium and my pix were rubbish!
It'll be interesting to see how the debate in Parliament goes.
Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Well put Avery.
Scary though it is, this has become a cock-waving contest between the super-powers. America has made its move and is daring Russia to blink. And I think Russia probably will blink. Assad is their only solid ally in the Middle East and the Russians know America has the power to remove him very quickly, destabilising the country but robbing Russia of their ally in the process. A demonstration of willingness to act is probably a calculated move by the Americans for Russia to speak some sense to Assad, or else.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick 2m
Wednesday's Independent front page - "The heir to Blair" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #Syria pic.twitter.com/Xmg4BIALMs
Wont that make the West look even more impotent?
So isn't it likely that once the first cruise missile is launched we're heading down the regime change path.
At least Iraq had oil and was a threat to other oil producing countries so there was some realpolitik reason for regime change there.
With 6 mins to go
Now we're going to intervene in Syria on the same side as Al Qaeda.
How soon before we're intervening in Syria to remove the Al Qaeda bases which were established because of our intervention?
As you say the simplest explanations are the most likely
Classy, very classy!
PS I actually laughed at that.
Oh, except Nelson. That's an enormous exception.
I might have to give up my ticket for Sunday, we're going to get spanked.
#PB is taking over my life
He stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
Answer Joe Biden
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NEWS/71129018
That doesn't matter though......Sturridge has just scored.
Get some make up on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007sfdd
My fellow Whovians, look to the right of this picture
pic.twitter.com/qvQWhWBTrO
We [ the CIA actually ] helped the Mujahiddin go to Afghanistan in the first place. It included a young idealist by the name of Osama Bin Laden. Of course, the Ruskies were the enemy then.
In a sensational interview on the state-run TV channel Russia Today, the UK Independence Party leader slammed calls for intervention over the escalating crisis, and warned Britain's "keenness" for involvement "could lead to something far bigger."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/27/nigel-farage-syria-war_n_3824175.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Molby (pen) and Nichol (pen)
Molby scored 42 pens for Liverpool....amazing.
50% opposed to missiles
74% opposed to troops
Do you have a link?
On a related note: Alexander the Great's eyes were different colours.
EXCL: Brits are against missile strikes on Syria by a big majority of 2 to 1 (50% v 25%); YouGov/Sun poll. 1st since new crisis.
and
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 44s
...and majority of voters for all parties also oppose Syria missile strikes; Tories 45-33%, Labour 54-26%, Lib Dems 47-27%, UKIP 68-22%.
But I haven't recovered from the gloom of last night. If we play with that degree of caution on a regular basis we will be winning nothing. Moyes was a very poor choice and he already looks out of his depth.
And we still don't have an attacking midfielder worth his salt. Bah.
That said, the underlying sentiment he refers to is broadly accurate.
Mr. Rag, repetition is often a hardy plant that grows in a desert of wit.
Brits also still oppose enforcing a no-fly-zone by 42-33%, sending defensive weapons by 50-23%, sending full-scale weapons including tanks by 61-13%, and deploying UK troops by 74% to 9%.
It is interesting that Clegg and Cameron both used the words Legal and Proportionate. As there is no case that an intervention is self defense then it is most likely an illegal war without a UN resolution, which surely is not going to happen.
Rather than squaring up to Russia, we should be trying to get them onside. Assad would fall quickly without Russian backing. Getting the sensible wing of the FSA to agree to continued Russian naval base may be a good start. The Russians would drop Assad if they could have continuing influence, and no British forces required...
It is almost as daft as recalling Parliament for a debate on bombing an arab country that has nothing to do with us. I really cannot see any upside for Cameron in this. Difficult problem, not easy to deal with but keeping the head down was the sensible option.
America has made its move and is daring Russia to blink. And I think Russia probably will blink.
Fenster
When I first visited Moscow on business in the mid 1980s, I met with the head of the representative office of one of the UK's largest banks. I was hoping for advice on doing business in a country which was very different from any I had encountered before.
'Alan' arrived late for our appointment following a very frustrating meeting with Vnesheconombank (The USSR Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs). He had been negotiating an agreement with the bank for nearly two years and had been told, no doubt for the umpteenth time, that the papers would be signed that morning. They weren't. And the reason given by his Russian counterpart was that Alan had reneged on a promise made at a previous meeting to provide Vnesheconombank with a box of a dozen liquid Tippex bottles.
But all this digresses from the main story. What Alan told me was never to take at face value any position taken by a Russian counterpart. It could change to its diametric opposite at any time and would do so often during the negotiation without any logical consistency. When I asked whether anything ever got agreed in Russia, he answered:
"Oh Yes! But never before the Russians are ready to agree. What happens is that you go into a small room for a few hours and fight. Blood is spilt all over the walls. And just when you think nothing will ever be agreed, you will be told that everything has. Then all will exit the room smiling. And the Russians will always keep to the agreement whatever conflicting positions they might have taken during the negotiation."
This was as good as any advice I got in twenty years of doing business in both communist and 'democratic' Russia. I experienced the formula many times.
So the prospects of a volte-face by the Russians on Syria are quite reasonable. When Putin decides to change every Russian official will follow in a snap. There will be a quick and hard negotiation with the US and a new position announced. And the Russians will go about their business smiling and denying that any prior contrary position had ever been taken.
Communists or not, the Russians haven't and won't change.
"My view is that what we’ve done in Afghanistan, in Iraq for many decades, whenever Brittan got involved in the Middle East, we tend to make thing worse, not better, and horrible though it is, ghastly, there are some crimes that are being committed and there is nothing the British military can do, in my view, to make things better. "
http://rt.com/op-edge/farage-syria-atack-uk-067/
As, coincidentally enough, did the reimagineered series.
Lebanese media sources report indeed that families of Syrian officials flew into Beirut and dispersed.
There are also reports a plane has turned up in Tehran with some of Assads family. No idea if he's on it.
In Damascus the rush to prepare for strikes has continued with the usual move of putting artillery in the middle of blocks of flats, many troops have eschewed armoured gear for vans.
Clearly no-one expects this thing to be stopped at the last.
My reasoning is quite simple: the Syrian regime has been trying to push the boundaries of what it can get away with for months now - starting off with small chemical attacks, using illegal SCUD missiles against civilian populations and building up to the most recent atrocity. Doing nothing in response to this gives Assad a free reign to carry on using chemical weapons against civilians. Sanctions and political solutions are meaningless in the middle of a long-running civil war. The only thing the West can do to deter the regime from repeating their actions are strikes that hurt, even if they do not alter the balance of the war.
It is more of a warning shot / a precedent for future regimes considering the use of chemical weapons, than anything analogous to the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts. So, speaking a Lib Dem who opposed Iraq, I'm very much in favour of the limited military action being discussed.
The end of the LibDems or the end of the Coalition?
US states ranked by charitable donations.
http://philanthropy.com/article/Generosity-in-the-States/133707/
US states ranked by religiousness.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx#2
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/21/how-religious-is-your-state/
All good things come to an end. Ask Labour re Blair.