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.
Don`t worry,the PB Tories can dish it out but can`t take it!
Although your view appears to be in the minority here, it's of sound reasoning, and it'll be interesting to see how opinion evolves regarding potential military action against Assad.
Odd choice of Cameron photo on the front of the Times...
Wednesday's Times front page - "West set for missile strike" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #Syria pic.twitter.com/QBdaLYXqcq
Q for PB mods - bit confused about the posting pictures rule... if I linked the fp twitter pic directly would it mush the bandwidth (or whatever the problem is?)
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
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.
So let's hurl some random missiles at Syria, to show them... er..... you know.... thingy.... but not do anything that might actually alter the course of the war.
What's the message we're sending there, then? It's OK to SLOWLY kill hundreds of people, to cut their heads off with, say, spoons, but if you quickly kill en masse with gas it's worse cause oh I dunno. Ergo it's better to torture people to death over months rather than bombing them swiftly. But hold on, we're bombing them to show it's bad to do things like bombing?
What is this shit? Who makes up this shit? It's just crap. It is deranged.
You should do a blog on Syria.
Perhaps entitle it "Are those in favour of military action in Syria, mentally ill?"
Syria: Caution on the report of the Assad plane turning up in Tehran. The claim is Assad was on it for a visit.
The claim is that Iranian TV has mentioned this however I cant for the life of me find that within the Iranian agencies and the source is from outside Iran..
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
It's incredible that the cheerleaders for this proposed attack still haven't grasped that the rebels have already stated that they are prepared to use chemical weapons too. (though they have already been implicated in their use before this) So what exactly is going to stop them now that they know any chemical attack will result in perhaps a couple of hundred cruise missiles heading for those populated areas under Assad's control? Particularly now that the U.S. and Cammie Blair have made it clear that the U.N. weapon inspectors are an irrelevance to their decision. Hans Blix has seen this play out before.
Not to mention the preposterous notion that the Al-Qaeda factions among the rebels are about to play nice because the rule of international law is always foremost in their minds.
But at least we aren't getting involved in a war in the middle east since nothing says impartial observer like a several dozen cruise missiles fired into an intractable civil war. The Russians and Putin are somewhat unlikely to roll over and give up whatever the spin from the idiots.
America has made its move and is daring Russia to blink. And I think Russia probably will blink.
Fenster
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.
Agree. Negotiating with the Russians is all about getting the timing right - their timing - and even more so if they thought that your idea was so good that they must have thought of it first but that they were just being polite enough for you to think that it was your idea.
That way both sides came out winners. Found this was especially true when dealing with the KGB. As usual you have to be talking with the political decision makers and not their staff.
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
But the Labour percentage hardly ever moves. It is stuck between 36% and 40% and has been for quite a while. In fact nearly 96% of polls since August 2010, using all polling organisations, have shown Labour in this bracket. It is the other parties that do all the fluctuating. And those outside of the bracket have virtually all been moe of it, with the vast majority of them being north of the figure.
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
But the Labour percentage hardly ever moves. It is stuck between 36% and 40% and has been for quite a while. In fact nearly 96% of polls since August 2010, using all polling organisations, have shown Labour in this bracket. It is the other parties that do all the fluctuating. And those outside of the bracket have virtually all been moe of it, with the vast majority of them being north of the figure.
Actually I have a thread on this coming up (well actually two)
One, when we get the ComRes phone poll, one when we get all the polling for August out of the way
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.
Don`t worry,the PB Tories can dish it out but can`t take it!
Are you struggling with comprehension? The objection is pointless criticism of physical appearance. I think that it's pathetic whoever the target. If you can't find something to attack other than the appearance of the current crop of sub standard politicians, it doesn't exactly reflect well on your intellect.
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
But the Labour percentage hardly ever moves. It is stuck between 36% and 40% and has been for quite a while. In fact nearly 96% of polls since August 2010, using all polling organisations, have shown Labour in this bracket. It is the other parties that do all the fluctuating. And those outside of the bracket have virtually all been moe of it, with the vast majority of them being north of the figure.
Actually I have a thread on this coming up (well actually two)
One, when we get the ComRes phone poll, one when we get all the polling for August out of the way
Oh good. I did mention this quite a while back on here and on the blog.
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
But the Labour percentage hardly ever moves. It is stuck between 36% and 40% and has been for quite a while. In fact nearly 96% of polls since August 2010, using all polling organisations, have shown Labour in this bracket. It is the other parties that do all the fluctuating. And those outside of the bracket have virtually all been moe of it, with the vast majority of them being north of the figure.
Actually I have a thread on this coming up (well actually two)
One, when we get the ComRes phone poll, one when we get all the polling for August out of the way
Oh good. I did mention this quite a while back on here and on the blog.
It'll be the companion piece to this thread from May
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
But the Labour percentage hardly ever moves. It is stuck between 36% and 40% and has been for quite a while. In fact nearly 96% of polls since August 2010, using all polling organisations, have shown Labour in this bracket. It is the other parties that do all the fluctuating. And those outside of the bracket have virtually all been moe of it, with the vast majority of them being north of the figure.
Actually I have a thread on this coming up (well actually two)
One, when we get the ComRes phone poll, one when we get all the polling for August out of the way
Oh good. I did mention this quite a while back on here and on the blog.
It'll be the companion piece to this thread from May
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.
Don`t worry,the PB Tories can dish it out but can`t take it!
Are you struggling with comprehension? The objection is pointless criticism of physical appearance. I think that it's pathetic whoever the target. If you can't find something to attack other than the appearance of the current crop of sub standard politicians, it doesn't exactly reflect well on your intellect.
I hope you understand that your description fits plenty of PB Tories who do a lot more of this pointless attacking about Ed`s physical appearance than lefties attacking Cameron...I would like you to show me a previous post of yours attacking their behaviour...Perhaps it`s time you understand that party supporters do a bit of gentle needling on this site and it`s generally taken in good spirit by both sides.
So let's hurl some random missiles at Syria, to show them... er..... you know.... thingy.... but not do anything that might actually alter the course of the war.
What's the message we're sending there, then? It's OK to SLOWLY kill hundreds of people, to cut their heads off with, say, spoons, but if you quickly kill en masse with gas it's worse cause oh I dunno. Ergo it's better to torture people to death over months rather than bombing them swiftly. But hold on, we're bombing them to show it's bad to do things like bombing?
What is this shit? Who makes up this shit? It's just crap. It is deranged.
There is a fundamental difference between large scale conventional and large scale chemical warfare, and it is the reason the latter has been banned for nearly 100 years. Apart from the threat it poses to regional stability, it indiscriminately wipes out entire towns with children particularly vulnerable.
You sound rather like a pacifist with the "bombing to stop bombing makes no sense". Strategic attacks as a demonstration that chemical attacks are unacceptable and as a show of Western power, will most likely achieve it's primary aim of stopping the further escalation of chemical warfare by the Assad regime.
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
But the Labour percentage hardly ever moves. It is stuck between 36% and 40% and has been for quite a while. In fact nearly 96% of polls since August 2010, using all polling organisations, have shown Labour in this bracket. It is the other parties that do all the fluctuating. And those outside of the bracket have virtually all been moe of it, with the vast majority of them being north of the figure.
Actually I have a thread on this coming up (well actually two)
One, when we get the ComRes phone poll, one when we get all the polling for August out of the way
Oh good. I did mention this quite a while back on here and on the blog.
It'll be the companion piece to this thread from May
With yet another poll showing Labour in their Fort Knox style bracket of 36%-40%. How long do you think it will take Messina, Crosby (have I missed anyone out, they haven't hired anyone this week have they?) Shapps, et all that the "Ed is crap" line maybe effecting his personal percentage but has done diddly squat to the Labour percentage? It would also make it interesting if Labour start to hit the top end of their bracket especially if UKIP move up another point or two. What then.....more "Ed is crap"?
Is that the same poll that showed Labour's lead shrinking?
But the Labour percentage hardly ever moves. It is stuck between 36% and 40% and has been for quite a while. In fact nearly 96% of polls since August 2010, using all polling organisations, have shown Labour in this bracket. It is the other parties that do all the fluctuating. And those outside of the bracket have virtually all been moe of it, with the vast majority of them being north of the figure.
Actually I have a thread on this coming up (well actually two)
One, when we get the ComRes phone poll, one when we get all the polling for August out of the way
Oh good. I did mention this quite a while back on here and on the blog.
It'll be the companion piece to this thread from May
I remember my late father telling me that he was in Syria with the British army in the 50s doing mapping of some sort. One morning they woke up and found that all their kurd helpers had disappeared overnight. Time to move out.
The idea that some sort of one off missile raid is going to have any material effect at this stage is really bizarre and deluded. We would be back to the usual US campaign degrading command and control over an extended period while the news footage of the collaterals piled up once more. Why go there? I mean really, why? It makes no sense to me.
It is not as if we even really want these rebels to win. Surely it is not that. Them gaining control of chemical weapons stocks really makes no one safer. No one at all.
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.
Don`t worry,the PB Tories can dish it out but can`t take it!
Are you struggling with comprehension? The objection is pointless criticism of physical appearance. I think that it's pathetic whoever the target. If you can't find something to attack other than the appearance of the current crop of sub standard politicians, it doesn't exactly reflect well on your intellect.
I hope you understand that your description fits plenty of PB Tories who do a lot more of this pointless attacking about Ed`s physical appearance than lefties attacking Cameron...I would like you to show me a previous post of yours attacking their behaviour...Perhaps it`s time you understand that party supporters do a bit of gentle needling on this site and it`s generally taken in good spirit by both sides.
Little did I know, when mentioning the likeness of Camerons cheeks to a piece of streaky unsmoked, that it would result in so many posts. Some touchy posters on here. They have proven your point SMukesh.
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.
Don`t worry,the PB Tories can dish it out but can`t take it!
Are you struggling with comprehension? The objection is pointless criticism of physical appearance. I think that it's pathetic whoever the target. If you can't find something to attack other than the appearance of the current crop of sub standard politicians, it doesn't exactly reflect well on your intellect.
I hope you understand that your description fits plenty of PB Tories who do a lot more of this pointless attacking about Ed`s physical appearance than lefties attacking Cameron...I would like you to show me a previous post of yours attacking their behaviour...Perhaps it`s time you understand that party supporters do a bit of gentle needling on this site and it`s generally taken in good spirit by both sides.
I've made a total of 25 posts on this site. I'm sorry if you feel that I've not been diligent enough on meeting BBC standards of impartiality, I'll try and meet up to your expectations in future. By the way do you realize that another way of describing needling is trolling, if you enjoy that fair enough, don't include me though.
"So, 'Assad chemical bombs his own capital city on a windy day, while he's winning his civil war, just as UN inspectors arrive to sniff out any sign of chemical weapons'?"
"Do you think they'll buy it?"
"Course they'll buy it. They're the imbecilic British, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians will swear that it's true. Just like last time..."
An interesting point on the legality or legitimacy of any military action which might be taken is that Syria is one of only seven states which are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention (full name "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction").
189 of 196 states recognised by the UN have ratified the treaty. Two states, Burma and Israel, have signed but not yet ratified. The five states which have not signed the treaty are Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria.
It should be noted though that Syria is not one of thirteen countries who have declared chemical weapons production facilities. The closest countries who are declared as producers are Iran and Iraq. Russia and China are also producers.
The fact that Syria is not bound by the CWC treaty may make the legal case in favour of military intervention more complex.
Surely it is better lose a false sense of moral superiority than to continue to assume something that isn't true? Otherwise you start making judgements on a false basis.
For instance, if you believe the "Special Relationship" between the US and the UK means anything more than the original narrow meaning (intelligence embedding) then you are deluding yourself.
And I'm not sure that US politicans, in particular, are mentally diseased (aka "aethists"). If anything, quite the reverse!
An interesting point on the legality or legitimacy of any military action which might be taken is that Syria is one of only seven states which are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention (full name "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction").
189 of 196 states recognised by the UN have ratified the treaty. Two states, Burma and Israel, have signed but not yet ratified. The five states which have not signed the treaty are Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria.
It should be noted though that Syria is not one of thirteen countries who have declared chemical weapons production facilities. The closest countries who are declared as producers are Iran and Iraq. Russia and China are also producers.
The fact that Syria is not bound by the CWC treaty may make the legal case in favour of military intervention more complex.
I thought South Sudan was the sane part of the country? Is the fact they haven't signed simply the fact that they have had more important things to do (like fighting off an invasion by the North?) Rather than conscious choice?
Although I am nervous about starting a discussion about successor states on here... Someone might get a bit stroppy and I am about to get on a flight out of Kansas...
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with what he said, but did he really think through the implications of saying it in an interview on Russia Today?
I'd solve the dilemma by condemning US actions in Vietnam, not defending them. They shouldn't have then, Assad shouldn't have now, the Germans shouldn't have gassed my great-grandfather in France in 1918.
If you're committed to action in Syria, it's on the strength of the argument not on whose saying it - whether it's the US behind the lectern or not.
At the risk of being tedious it is worth quoting the evidence, both real, alleged and circumstantial, of chemical weapons production and deployment in Syria. All from Wikipedia and most claims fully attributed.
Whatever your position on UK intervention, it is important to understand the extent of the Syrian government's stockpiling and deployment of chemical weapons.
In July 2012, Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stated that the Syrian armed forces would never use chemical weapons against domestic opposition, while remarking that these weapons remained available for use against "external aggression". Syria is thought to have the world's third-largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and opposition forces are concerned that the regime may use them as a last resort to retain power. In August 2012, the United States warned that the use of such weapons was a "red line" for the Ba'athist regime, and would result in "enormous consequences" if crossed. Similarly, France and the United Kingdom have warned of severe consequences for the use of chemical weapons, with France in particular promising a "massive and blistering" response.
In September 2012, the Syrian military began moving its chemical weapons from Damascus to the port city of Tartus. That same month, it was reported that the military had restarted testing of chemical weapons at a base on the outskirts of Aleppo. On 28 September, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta stated that the Syrian regime had moved its chemical weapons in order to "secure" them from approaching opposition forces. It emerged that the Russian government had helped set up communications between the United States and Syria regarding the status of Syria's chemical weapons. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Syria had given the United States "explanations" and "assurances" that it was taking care of the weapons. On 8 December, it was reported that members of the jihadist Al-Nusra Front had recently captured a Saudi-owned toxic chemicals plant outside of Aleppo.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with what he said, but did he really think through the implications of saying it in an interview on Russia Today?
What are the implications according to you, smartbrain ?
[Syrian Government use of Chemical Weapons: continued]
Allegations that chemical weapons have been used in Syria first began to emerge on 23 December 2012, when Al Jazeera released unconfirmed reports that a gas attack killed 7 civilians in the rebel-held al-Bayyada neighbourhood of Homs. Less than a month later, a leaked U.S. cable revealed that American officials felt there was a "compelling case" for the use of Agent 15 by regime forces. The White House subsequently rebuked this by stating that "the reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program".
On 22 December 2012, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Syria had consolidated chemical weapons into one or two places to prevent rebels capturing them, and that recent moves that had alarmed Western governments were part of this consolidation.
A Syrian defector who worked inside the chemical weapons network has alleged that two senior Syrian officers moved about 100 kg. of chemical weapons materials from a secret military base in Nasiriyah in January 2012. The Syrian source also described construction of special trucks, which could transport and mix the weapons. These mobile mixers were constructed inside Mercedes or Volvo trucks that were similar to refrigerator trucks. Inside were storage tanks, pipes and a motor to drive the mixing machinery, the defector said.
There have been multiple unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, possibly 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate which is generally non-fatal. However in response to these reports U.S. National Security Council spokesman stated "The reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program". In 2013, a YouTube video was posted from the town of Otaibeh indicating that the Syrian army had used chemical weapons. The video shows a flock of dead birds on the ground as evidence substantiating the claim.
[Syrian Government use of Chemical Weapons: continued]
In December 2012, Syrian forces, following the advice of Russian military advisers, concentrated their stockpiles of chemical weapons into two to four main storage areas for reasons of security and safety.
On 19 March 2013, new unconfirmed reports surfaced that SCUD missiles armed with chemical agents may have been fired into the Khan al-Asal district in Aleppo and the Al Atebeh suburbs of Damascus, with both sides accusing each other of carrying out the attack. According to a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, the attack occurred in rebel territory, though Reuters photographs showed images of Syrian government soldiers injured in the attack. An unnamed Reuters photographer described the gas as having a "chlorine-like smell" and claimed to have witnessed victims suffocating. Officials from within the United States government disputed this claim and stated that there had been no substantive evidence of chemical warfare in Syria, although President Obama reiterated the American stance that such a move coming from either side would be a "game changer" and might prompt international intervention in the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. Meanwhile, the Russian government sided with the Syrian government and blamed the rebels for the attack. Within weeks, the Assad government accused the UN of attempting to extend an investigation in Khan al-Asal to the rest of the country and declared that it would not tolerate such a move.
Zahir al-Sakit, a former Syrian army general from the chemical weapons branch, said he was instructed to use chemical weapons during a battle with the FSA in the southwestern area of Hauran. But instead, Sakit disobeyed the orders and swapped the chemicals with disinfectant water he called "Javel water".
On 13 April, The Times reported that British military scientists have found forensic evidence of chemical weapons being used in the conflict, after examining a soil sample smuggled out of Syria. The perpetrators of the probable gas attacks remain unknown.
An 23 April 2013 the New York Times reported that the British and French governments had sent a confidential letter to the United Nations Secretary General, claiming that there was evidence that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in Aleppo, Homs, and perhaps Damascus. The United States did not acknowledge this claim at this time, which the New York Times article speculated was because President Obama had promised to intervene militarily if chemical weapon use was proven, and the United States would prefer not to be forced to enter the war right now. Israel also claimed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on 19 March near Aleppo and Damascus. By 25 April the U.S intelligence assessment was that the Assad regime had likely used chemical weapons – specifically sarin gas. However, the White House announced that "much more" work had to be done to verify the intelligence assessments. Syria has refused an investigation team from the UN from entering Syria, though Jeffrey Feltman, UN under-secretary for political affairs, said on Wednesday that a refusal would not prevent an inquiry from being carried out.
On 29 April, another chemical attack was reported, this time in Saraqib, in which 2 died and 13 were injured. The injured were taken to Turkey. On 5 May, Turkish doctors confirmed that no traces of sarin had been found in the blood samples of victims. The same day, members of the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria said it had 'gathered testimony – indicating' rebels had used the nerve agent sarin in attacks. Commission member Carla del Ponte said that there were 'strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas', from the way the victims were treated". Del Ponte gave no details as to when or where sarin may have been used. The Commission later clarified that it had no conclusive findings that any party has used chemical weapons. A senior United States White House official, Jay Carney, cast doubt on the idea that rebels could use chemicals weapons, or even possess them. Carney also noted that Del Ponte does not work on the UN team leading the investigation. Carney went on to say "We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime. And that remains our position".
It is believed the military research center, which Israel struck on 5 May, held chemical weapons.
After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians.
A U.N. report stated that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that limited amounts of chemical weapons have been used in at least four attacks in the civil war, but more evidence is needed to determine the exact chemical agents used or who was responsible. Stating that it has not been possible "to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator."
In June 2013, British and French authorities claim to have evidence that Sarin nerve gas has been used in Syria, these findings and evidence have been passed on to the US government. The evidence is largely made up of samples of bodily fluids taken from individuals who claim to have been affected. However both countries admitted that they cannot prove with "100% certainty" their claims.
On 13 June, the United States announced that there is definitive proof that the Assad government has used limited amounts of chemical weapons on multiple occasions on rebel forces, killing 100 to 150 people.
On 9 July 2013, the Russian Federation submitted the results of its inquiry into the use of chemical weapons at Khan al-Assal to the United Nations. Russian scientists analyzing the 19 March 2013 attack found that it was most likely launched by opposition forces, and not the Syrian government.
On 21 August 2013, the area of Ghouta was the scene of an alleged Assad government chemical weapons attack that caused the deaths of hundreds to 1,400 people. The following day, a Syrian man who asked to remain anonymous described the horrific scene he witnessed near his home outside of Damascus. He said that the scene was proof of a chemical attack against the Syrian people by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.
I'm on balance against the strikes, which seem to me essentially an intervention to favour one dubious side againat another, because we can. As SeanT observes, the West doesn't have a shiny record on chemical warfare, and it contributes to the idea that we only get outraged about stuff if other people do it AND the other people are not our current allies. (We really liked Gaddafi for a while when he voluntarily admitted to WMD and gave them up, but we knifed him anyway when we got the chance.) If it turned out that the rebels were using chemical weapons, does anyone think we'd start firing missiles at them too?
But I doubt if the strikes will really be a one-off - they only make sense as part of a regime-weakening strategy. We bombarded Libya for a week or two and I expect we'll do the same here. If no Brits are killed I don't think there will be a wave of popular anger, just a bemused shaking of heads. If Assad falls it could even be come to be seen as a sort of success for a while, depending who replaced him.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with what he said, but did he really think through the implications of saying it in an interview on Russia Today?
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with what he said, but did he really think through the implications of saying it in an interview on Russia Today?
Does it matter what TV station broadcast it?
Yes.
Also, having now watched the whole thing: this is Galloway country.
And on balance I'm in favour. Simply because in making it a "red line" Obama has backed the West into a corner. If we don't demonstrate that we will act then various unpleasant dictators will take note - and it reinforces the message of Libya ("don't give up your WMD") to "use your WMD if needed").
The US is by no means perfect - and Vietnam is a black spot on its record (pesky Democrats!) But overall it is a force for good in the world. Maintaining their credibnility is important to us all.
As for political implications in the UK: not much if it goes well - as with Libya it leaves a general impression of firm and sensible leadership. If it goes pear shaped then it can be very negative
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%.
The wisdom of crowds. Americans are even MORE opposed to military intervention.
I have a feeling Cameron is about to do something which will, at best, achieve nothing and make him look stupid, or, at worst, prove a monumental and fatal f*ck up.
Farage is right. Let's just stop intervening in other people's wars. Especially in Islam. We don't need to get involved: oil becomes ever less important with shale. If they want to shoot each other/gas each other/break each other on the wheel, so be it - there's nothing we can do.
Notice China's studied non intervention in any of this shit. China is the world's biggest trading, manufacturing and fiscal superpower. Yet China doesn't give a f*ck. China, also, does not go round invading countries and killing 100,000s.
Western politicians are mentally diseased.
I don't often agree with SeanT, but well said here! The burden of proof for any government to go to war is quite rightly that much higher afer the Iraq WMD fiasco. How do we know for sure that it wasn't an Al Qaeda group that carried this out for sure? Why would Assad deliberately do this knowing clearly the redline that Obama mentioned as any grounds for action in 2012? We also stand the risk of igniting the whole of the Middle East with this venture, with Sunni and Shiite tensions already at boiling point. And with the declining importance of Middle East oil, we should leave them to themselves to sort their affairs out.
On the markets, S&P 500 100 day moving average taken out. Starting to look very good for the bearish case:
Need 1620 taking out on the S&P, that should be the role of the third of the third Elliott wave (usually the strongest part of the decline) in this sequence down to accomplish. The move out of emerging market debt (India, Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Thailand, Phillipines etc) has been something to behold over the past few days. Peripheral European bond spreads starting to rise, noticeably in Italy with their increasing political crisis too. Its finally looking like the crisis of all financial crises has begun.
I'm on balance against the strikes, which seem to me essentially an intervention to favour one dubious side againat another, because we can. As SeanT observes, the West doesn't have a shiny record on chemical warfare, and it contributes to the idea that we only get outraged about stuff if other people do it AND the other people are not our current allies. (We really liked Gaddafi for a while when he voluntarily admitted to WMD and gave them up, but we knifed him anyway when we got the chance.) If it turned out that the rebels were using chemical weapons, does anyone think we'd start firing missiles at them too?
But I doubt if the strikes will really be a one-off - they only make sense as part of a regime-weakening strategy. We bombarded Libya for a week or two and I expect we'll do the same here. If no Brits are killed I don't think there will be a wave of popular anger, just a bemused shaking of heads. If Assad falls it could even be come to be seen as a sort of success for a while, depending who replaced him.
Nick, what's yout feeling for how the Labour backbenchers are going to split on the vote at the end of the week, assuming Miliband and the front bench are supportive with caveats?
What utter DISGUSTING drivel. America inflicted the worst chemical warfare in history, in the form of Agent Orange, on south east Asia, in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps you are too stupid to know this. So here's a wake up call, published this week.
Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (not the 2000-3000 we hear cited in Syria) either died as a result of this chemical attack or suffered grotesque diseases, malformations, and now - 40 years later - third generation genetic ailments. The suffering goes on.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE you cretin. And try not to cry. Then tell me America has the right to morally lecture others on "chemical warfare"
Ugh. GRRRR. I really AM gonna blog about this, now.
When did anything I say give the impression that I agree with all past-and-present actions by the US army? I even said in my first comment that I disagreed with the Iraq war, and I would like to think (had I been alive) I would have disagreed with war in Vietnam, and would definitely condemn any chemical weapons used. The US may be hypocrites over the course of history - that doesn't mean all supporters of military action in this particular scenario are.
Shortened version: none of what you posted has any bearing on the validity of my position.
"Pro-Assad regime hackers claim to have targeted leading US media websites, shutting down the New York Times for 30 minutes.
The Syrian Electronic Army claims to have hacked into sites belonging to Twitter and the Huffington Post, making them unstable, as well as closing down the NYT.
The NYT attributed the meltdown to a "malicious external attack".
When users attempted to visit www.nytimes.com, the only message that appeared was "Hacked by the SEA".
Matt Johansen of WhiteHat Security said in a tweet that the technical aspects of the website during the attack were "pointing to Syrian Electronic Army."
Meanwhile, Twitter spokesman Jim Prosser confirmed that site technicians are "looking into claims" it had been hacked by the SEA."
The West intervened in Iraq, the country is a total mess. The West intervened in Libya, that country is in a total mess. Should the West intervene in Syria-the future result-a total mess. The USA, Britain and France are total global crooks and aggressors. Remember Agent Orange in Vietnam, remember the use of radiation tipped bombs and missiles in Iraq. Who used them? The British and the Americans. Some people never learn, nor do they want to stop their war crimes.
Comments
Although your view appears to be in the minority here, it's of sound reasoning, and it'll be interesting to see how opinion evolves regarding potential military action against Assad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Korean_surnames_by_prevalence
Wednesday's Times front page - "West set for missile strike" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #Syria pic.twitter.com/QBdaLYXqcq
To me, it's weird when people in the same family are enormously taller or shorter than each other.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria–Lebanon_Campaign
Interesting to see that it was while serving with Australian forces that Moshe Dayan lost his eye.
A series of air strikes, naval blockade and invasion from both Jordan and Iraq was the way to go and it was all over in six weeks.
Not likely to be the same this time though, we will not be fighting the cheese eating surrender monkeys this time!
Perhaps entitle it "Are those in favour of military action in Syria, mentally ill?"
The claim is that Iranian TV has mentioned this however I cant for the life of me find that within the Iranian agencies and the source is from outside Iran..
Not to mention the preposterous notion that the Al-Qaeda factions among the rebels are about to play nice because the rule of international law is always foremost in their minds.
But at least we aren't getting involved in a war in the middle east since nothing says impartial observer like a several dozen cruise missiles fired into an intractable civil war. The Russians and Putin are somewhat unlikely to roll over and give up whatever the spin from the idiots.
Agree. Negotiating with the Russians is all about getting the timing right - their timing - and even more so if they thought that your idea was so good that they must have thought of it first but that they were just being polite enough for you to think that it was your idea.
That way both sides came out winners. Found this was especially true when dealing with the KGB. As usual you have to be talking with the political decision makers and not their staff.
From Y0kel's post below, it looks as though the Syrian top brass are already emigrating or in retreat.
One, when we get the ComRes phone poll, one when we get all the polling for August out of the way
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/29/polling-averages-and-changes-with-the-phone-pollsters-since-january/
You sound rather like a pacifist with the "bombing to stop bombing makes no sense". Strategic attacks as a demonstration that chemical attacks are unacceptable and as a show of Western power, will most likely achieve it's primary aim of stopping the further escalation of chemical warfare by the Assad regime.
2) All online polls excluding YouGov
3) YouGov only
4) All polls
The idea that some sort of one off missile raid is going to have any material effect at this stage is really bizarre and deluded. We would be back to the usual US campaign degrading command and control over an extended period while the news footage of the collaterals piled up once more. Why go there? I mean really, why? It makes no sense to me.
It is not as if we even really want these rebels to win. Surely it is not that. Them gaining control of chemical weapons stocks really makes no one safer. No one at all.
I've subscribed to the Sun.
Purely for their piece on the YouGov polling on Syria
"Do you think they'll buy it?"
"Course they'll buy it. They're the imbecilic British, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians will swear that it's true. Just like last time..."
189 of 196 states recognised by the UN have ratified the treaty. Two states, Burma and Israel, have signed but not yet ratified. The five states which have not signed the treaty are Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria.
It should be noted though that Syria is not one of thirteen countries who have declared chemical weapons production facilities. The closest countries who are declared as producers are Iran and Iraq. Russia and China are also producers.
The fact that Syria is not bound by the CWC treaty may make the legal case in favour of military intervention more complex.
Surely it is better lose a false sense of moral superiority than to continue to assume something that isn't true? Otherwise you start making judgements on a false basis.
For instance, if you believe the "Special Relationship" between the US and the UK means anything more than the original narrow meaning (intelligence embedding) then you are deluding yourself.
And I'm not sure that US politicans, in particular, are mentally diseased (aka "aethists"). If anything, quite the reverse!
Although I am nervous about starting a discussion about successor states on here... Someone might get a bit stroppy and I am about to get on a flight out of Kansas...
;-)
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with what he said, but did he really think through the implications of saying it in an interview on Russia Today?
I'd solve the dilemma by condemning US actions in Vietnam, not defending them. They shouldn't have then, Assad shouldn't have now, the Germans shouldn't have gassed my great-grandfather in France in 1918.
If you're committed to action in Syria, it's on the strength of the argument not on whose saying it - whether it's the US behind the lectern or not.
Whatever your position on UK intervention, it is important to understand the extent of the Syrian government's stockpiling and deployment of chemical weapons.
In July 2012, Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stated that the Syrian armed forces would never use chemical weapons against domestic opposition, while remarking that these weapons remained available for use against "external aggression". Syria is thought to have the world's third-largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and opposition forces are concerned that the regime may use them as a last resort to retain power. In August 2012, the United States warned that the use of such weapons was a "red line" for the Ba'athist regime, and would result in "enormous consequences" if crossed. Similarly, France and the United Kingdom have warned of severe consequences for the use of chemical weapons, with France in particular promising a "massive and blistering" response.
In September 2012, the Syrian military began moving its chemical weapons from Damascus to the port city of Tartus. That same month, it was reported that the military had restarted testing of chemical weapons at a base on the outskirts of Aleppo. On 28 September, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta stated that the Syrian regime had moved its chemical weapons in order to "secure" them from approaching opposition forces. It emerged that the Russian government had helped set up communications between the United States and Syria regarding the status of Syria's chemical weapons. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Syria had given the United States "explanations" and "assurances" that it was taking care of the weapons. On 8 December, it was reported that members of the jihadist Al-Nusra Front had recently captured a Saudi-owned toxic chemicals plant outside of Aleppo.
Allegations that chemical weapons have been used in Syria first began to emerge on 23 December 2012, when Al Jazeera released unconfirmed reports that a gas attack killed 7 civilians in the rebel-held al-Bayyada neighbourhood of Homs. Less than a month later, a leaked U.S. cable revealed that American officials felt there was a "compelling case" for the use of Agent 15 by regime forces. The White House subsequently rebuked this by stating that "the reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program".
On 22 December 2012, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Syria had consolidated chemical weapons into one or two places to prevent rebels capturing them, and that recent moves that had alarmed Western governments were part of this consolidation.
A Syrian defector who worked inside the chemical weapons network has alleged that two senior Syrian officers moved about 100 kg. of chemical weapons materials from a secret military base in Nasiriyah in January 2012. The Syrian source also described construction of special trucks, which could transport and mix the weapons. These mobile mixers were constructed inside Mercedes or Volvo trucks that were similar to refrigerator trucks. Inside were storage tanks, pipes and a motor to drive the mixing machinery, the defector said.
There have been multiple unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, possibly 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate which is generally non-fatal. However in response to these reports U.S. National Security Council spokesman stated "The reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program". In 2013, a YouTube video was posted from the town of Otaibeh indicating that the Syrian army had used chemical weapons. The video shows a flock of dead birds on the ground as evidence substantiating the claim.
In December 2012, Syrian forces, following the advice of Russian military advisers, concentrated their stockpiles of chemical weapons into two to four main storage areas for reasons of security and safety.
On 19 March 2013, new unconfirmed reports surfaced that SCUD missiles armed with chemical agents may have been fired into the Khan al-Asal district in Aleppo and the Al Atebeh suburbs of Damascus, with both sides accusing each other of carrying out the attack. According to a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, the attack occurred in rebel territory, though Reuters photographs showed images of Syrian government soldiers injured in the attack. An unnamed Reuters photographer described the gas as having a "chlorine-like smell" and claimed to have witnessed victims suffocating. Officials from within the United States government disputed this claim and stated that there had been no substantive evidence of chemical warfare in Syria, although President Obama reiterated the American stance that such a move coming from either side would be a "game changer" and might prompt international intervention in the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. Meanwhile, the Russian government sided with the Syrian government and blamed the rebels for the attack. Within weeks, the Assad government accused the UN of attempting to extend an investigation in Khan al-Asal to the rest of the country and declared that it would not tolerate such a move.
Zahir al-Sakit, a former Syrian army general from the chemical weapons branch, said he was instructed to use chemical weapons during a battle with the FSA in the southwestern area of Hauran. But instead, Sakit disobeyed the orders and swapped the chemicals with disinfectant water he called "Javel water".
On 13 April, The Times reported that British military scientists have found forensic evidence of chemical weapons being used in the conflict, after examining a soil sample smuggled out of Syria. The perpetrators of the probable gas attacks remain unknown.
An 23 April 2013 the New York Times reported that the British and French governments had sent a confidential letter to the United Nations Secretary General, claiming that there was evidence that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in Aleppo, Homs, and perhaps Damascus. The United States did not acknowledge this claim at this time, which the New York Times article speculated was because President Obama had promised to intervene militarily if chemical weapon use was proven, and the United States would prefer not to be forced to enter the war right now. Israel also claimed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on 19 March near Aleppo and Damascus. By 25 April the U.S intelligence assessment was that the Assad regime had likely used chemical weapons – specifically sarin gas. However, the White House announced that "much more" work had to be done to verify the intelligence assessments. Syria has refused an investigation team from the UN from entering Syria, though Jeffrey Feltman, UN under-secretary for political affairs, said on Wednesday that a refusal would not prevent an inquiry from being carried out.
On 29 April, another chemical attack was reported, this time in Saraqib, in which 2 died and 13 were injured. The injured were taken to Turkey. On 5 May, Turkish doctors confirmed that no traces of sarin had been found in the blood samples of victims. The same day, members of the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria said it had 'gathered testimony – indicating' rebels had used the nerve agent sarin in attacks. Commission member Carla del Ponte said that there were 'strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas', from the way the victims were treated". Del Ponte gave no details as to when or where sarin may have been used. The Commission later clarified that it had no conclusive findings that any party has used chemical weapons. A senior United States White House official, Jay Carney, cast doubt on the idea that rebels could use chemicals weapons, or even possess them. Carney also noted that Del Ponte does not work on the UN team leading the investigation. Carney went on to say "We find it highly likely that any chemical weapon use that has taken place in Syria was done by the Assad regime. And that remains our position".
It is believed the military research center, which Israel struck on 5 May, held chemical weapons.
After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians.
A U.N. report stated that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that limited amounts of chemical weapons have been used in at least four attacks in the civil war, but more evidence is needed to determine the exact chemical agents used or who was responsible. Stating that it has not been possible "to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator."
In June 2013, British and French authorities claim to have evidence that Sarin nerve gas has been used in Syria, these findings and evidence have been passed on to the US government. The evidence is largely made up of samples of bodily fluids taken from individuals who claim to have been affected. However both countries admitted that they cannot prove with "100% certainty" their claims.
On 13 June, the United States announced that there is definitive proof that the Assad government has used limited amounts of chemical weapons on multiple occasions on rebel forces, killing 100 to 150 people.
On 9 July 2013, the Russian Federation submitted the results of its inquiry into the use of chemical weapons at Khan al-Assal to the United Nations. Russian scientists analyzing the 19 March 2013 attack found that it was most likely launched by opposition forces, and not the Syrian government.
On 21 August 2013, the area of Ghouta was the scene of an alleged Assad government chemical weapons attack that caused the deaths of hundreds to 1,400 people. The following day, a Syrian man who asked to remain anonymous described the horrific scene he witnessed near his home outside of Damascus. He said that the scene was proof of a chemical attack against the Syrian people by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.
But I doubt if the strikes will really be a one-off - they only make sense as part of a regime-weakening strategy. We bombarded Libya for a week or two and I expect we'll do the same here. If no Brits are killed I don't think there will be a wave of popular anger, just a bemused shaking of heads. If Assad falls it could even be come to be seen as a sort of success for a while, depending who replaced him.
@oflynnexpress
So military action in Syria becomes the latest issue on which UKIP is speaking for majority and Lib/Lab/Con are not...
Also, having now watched the whole thing: this is Galloway country.
And on balance I'm in favour. Simply because in making it a "red line" Obama has backed the West into a corner. If we don't demonstrate that we will act then various unpleasant dictators will take note - and it reinforces the message of Libya ("don't give up your WMD") to "use your WMD if needed").
The US is by no means perfect - and Vietnam is a black spot on its record (pesky Democrats!) But overall it is a force for good in the world. Maintaining their credibnility is important to us all.
As for political implications in the UK: not much if it goes well - as with Libya it leaves a general impression of firm and sensible leadership. If it goes pear shaped then it can be very negative
On the markets, S&P 500 100 day moving average taken out. Starting to look very good for the bearish case:
http://www.pretzelcharts.com/2013/08/bulls-in-trouble.html
Need 1620 taking out on the S&P, that should be the role of the third of the third Elliott wave (usually the strongest part of the decline) in this sequence down to accomplish. The move out of emerging market debt (India, Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Thailand, Phillipines etc) has been something to behold over the past few days. Peripheral European bond spreads starting to rise, noticeably in Italy with their increasing political crisis too. Its finally looking like the crisis of all financial crises has begun.
Shortened version: none of what you posted has any bearing on the validity of my position.
"Pro-Assad regime hackers claim to have targeted leading US media websites, shutting down the New York Times for 30 minutes.
The Syrian Electronic Army claims to have hacked into sites belonging to Twitter and the Huffington Post, making them unstable, as well as closing down the NYT.
The NYT attributed the meltdown to a "malicious external attack".
When users attempted to visit www.nytimes.com, the only message that appeared was "Hacked by the SEA".
Matt Johansen of WhiteHat Security said in a tweet that the technical aspects of the website during the attack were "pointing to Syrian Electronic Army."
Meanwhile, Twitter spokesman Jim Prosser confirmed that site technicians are "looking into claims" it had been hacked by the SEA."
http://news.sky.com/story/1133912/pro-assad-hackers-target-us-websites