Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria
The most recent survey supports findings in a YouGov survey from April, which suggested the use of chemical weapons in Syria would make little if any difference at all to the British public’s disinclination towards greater involvement.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Do they know for sure that the other side didn't do it ?
I am often critical of Farage as far as his internal UKIP politics is concerned but in this case I think both morally and politically he is absolutely right. Politically UKIP can only benefit from being the only major party to oppose action (if indeed that is where the parties end up).
More importantly on a purely moral/practical level, our intervention will not make Syria a better or safer place, nor is there much chance it will lead to a more stable, democratic, tolerant or West friendly rule in the country.
I don't subscribe to any great conspiracy theories about why Cameron and Obama want to get us involved. I just think they believe their own propaganda about the righteousness of the cause and they are, unfortunately, wrong.
http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/08/27/caroline-lucas-a-military-response-to-assad-regime-could-lead-to-greater-harm-to-civilians/
I expected something slightly more clear-cut. Still, she'll vote against on Friday I'm sure.
I think the kind of anti-war Lib Dems who might give up on them over this are more likely to go back to Labour or to the Greens than all the way to UKIP.
UKIP could benefit from Tories with doubts about it though.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255103/Syria-rebels-beheaded-Christian-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html
Currently, there is no evidence that the most likely scenario – a symbolic missile strike on a key regime target – would have a deterrent effect on the Assad regime. To the contrary, it seems at least as likely that it could act as a provocation to the regime, and lead to an escalation of the conflict, and greater harm to civilians.
Now if military commanders were to claim that the degrading of military command and control and chemical weapons delivery capabilities would constrain the Assad regime and deter its ability to escalate the conflict, would she change her view?
By arguing military strategy she exposes her case to being undermined by expert opinion.
Contrary to what some of the more partisan posters on here seem to believe, I don't think any of the current crop of UK politicians who have achieved high office are stupid. Nor do I believe they can be unaware of the huge risks involved in such interventions. So either they think the risks are worth it or they are so ideologically committed that they cannot see any way to back out of the position they now find themselves in.
Hague has along seems to me to be the master of political expediency. His evolving position on the EU over the last two decades seems to be a classic example of this. So I would not be surprised to find that he is one of those who is fully aware of the risks and probable outcomes but thinks that as far as the politics goes it is a winning situation for the Conservatives.
"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
This has to the be most arduous PB thread I've ever written, started at 6.30pm on Tuesday and finished just before midnight, as events kept on overtaking the thread, and on that note, I'm off to bed.
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/scribble/5707/ba0a8d5002447dfafa4eef494bc9710f8eeacc98/ granted its an American magazine but its well worth the $3 a month and the editor (Paul Carr) is English.
The curious bit is that Syria is no longer a civil war. Once you go past Assad we seem to be approaching a regional Sunni v Shia war with the proxy pieces rapidly disappearing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
Getting Russia (and Iran?) to support this goal as a matter of urgency are his tactics.
So far the threat of military intervention is purely that. If Russia delivers then there may be no use of the military. If Putin calls Obama's bluff then there will be a targetted strike of sufficient force to deter the Assad regime from continuing to use chemical weapons.
I still think the chances are 60/40 that this particular stage of the conflict will be resolved without the US, UK and France launching a military strike. Russia getting Assad to stand down may now be the price though.
https://twitter.com/Official_SEA16
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/election-live3a-coalition-to-release-interim-costings-in-run-u/4917068
It also presupposes that Assad and his Lebanese allies will actually listen to Russia even if she does change her position.
Thanks! Though I probably shouldnt be wasting my time watching it!
Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130828178423
Wild rumours circulating that Putin is not best pleased about the Saudi's veiled threat to the Winter Olympics....
Saudi armed forces on high alert.
The heavily edited and carefully attributed Wikipedia accounts that I posted on the last thread give sufficient evidence to support a 'balance of probabilities' judgement that Assad's forces have deployed chemical weapons. And Wikipedia contains only information which is in the public domain.
I do expect the US to wait for the UN Inspectors currently in Syria to report to the UNSC before launching any strike. This was part of the agreement reached at the Northern Ireland G8 summit and pre-empting the report would let Russia off the hook.
As to timescale it looks as thought the UN Inspectors are being pressured to report by this weekend so this probably fits the military timescale and enables a UNSC showdown over the weekend.
If Russia falls into line with the US, UK and France by next week then it can give an ultimatum to Assad. Commit to immediate peace negotiations, surrender your chemical weapons weapons (UN supervised destruction) and agree in principle to an orderly transition of power to an interim government, subject to the Geneva negotiations; or;
... have your capability of continuing to rule Syria taken out by the western powers in a sustained military strike.
China will then play the winner...
David Cameron expected to have enough backing to win Thursday's emergency vote on using force.
Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, said she planned to vote against any military action because it "could explode a proxy war into global conflict", while Nick de Bois, MP for Enfield North and secretary of the backbench 1922 committee, said he was sceptical about the idea.
John Redwood, a former Conservative cabinet minister, said many of his colleagues "need persuading that there is any military intervention which the UK could make which would make it better".
A number of Liberal Democrats, whose party was the only one to oppose the Iraq war, are also yet to be fully convinced. Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said there was a moral case for intervention but he would be prepared to oppose action if he thought it would "make a dreadful situation worse".
Other MPs, including Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, and Tracey Crouch, a Tory MP, appealed on Twitter for their constituents to help them to make up their minds.":
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/27/diane-abbott-labour-syria?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
So a majority for the government but with votes against from MPs in all main parties is the likely result.
The people with the political problem are Lib and Lab.
'Who would know until soil and body samples etc get taken? Chances are the Israelis and US do as both have very large ears on Syria and that scale of weapons strike wouldn't be random. Assad's forces keep the special weapons fairly tightly within the control of particular units who are extensively monitored in their communications. Heavy rocket launches, though the methodology of these alleged attacks may not have involved such delivery tools, are completely monitorable from the moment these things heat up in their launch stands.
Thus there is every chance that the two nations above will already know from intelligence what went down.'
And so it appears the US is about to lean on communications intercepts as one pillar of proof, in tandem with reported body samples.
There was from the outset a predictable change in step on the back of this.
I mentioned a few months ago that a Falklands type moment would do Cameron a lot of good. Syria isn't the Falklands but there is enough revulsion of Assad for Cameron to justify a strike. The current opinion polling is very encouraging for him. If you had taken polls when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley you would have been lucky to find 1 in 20 wanting us to send a force south. The tabloids this morning are massively behind Cameron: he is showing moral courage and steel.
Where this differs from Iraq is on motive. There was a sense that the Gulf War II had a lot to do with unfinished business and, arguably, oil. Syria is less obviously a devious mission. Assad is evil with evidence of using chemical weapons. This makes intervention much more morally plausible.
We stood by and watched the Rwandan genocide, which is a disgraceful blot on the western book. Cameron is not going to allow similar this time around.
In time (6 to 9 months) I think we will see this action as a decisive moment when the Conservatives closed the gap on Labour and then overtook them.
I wonder if party president, non-minister and hot favourite for leader's job, Tim Farron, will make a stand on this. Ideal opportunity.
It will be interesting to see the detailed data. How are the 2010 LDs supports now splitting?
Obama made it a red line on use of chemical weapons. There was pretty good evidence the last time they were used that Assad was responsible, but he chose to equivocate. This time the evidence is even more compelling. (By lying, Blair made it very difficult for people to trust the intelligence that the government, but no one else, sees. But sometimes you just have to.)
If the West does not intervene now that Assad has called Obama's bluff, then the US's credibility will be fatally undermined, at least for the duration of Obama's presidency. (Thank goodness, as an aside, that Clinton is no longer part of the regime as this offers the best chance for a reset post 2016). If there is no intervention, expect North Korea, Iran and various other nasties to up their efforts to develop WMD while Obama is still in power.
Is there a possibility he would have to resign?
With great respect your assertion about public opinion ahead of Falklands war in 1982 is totally bollocks.
If you want to make assertions on public opinion on PB then at least do a quick Google search to get the facts.
You would have found that on April 14 1982 MORI found by 60% to 30% that people were satisfied with the way the government was handing the situation. That rose to 84% by June.
See http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/49/The-Falklands-War-Panel-Survey.aspx
Task force was approved by House of Commons on 3rd April.
So by 14th April (date of MORI poll) things were already well under way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Initial_British_response
More than two millennia ago, the rulers of Carthage tested the resolve of a superpower by attacking the neighbouring kingdom of Numidia.
It was an unwise decision. Rome responded by launching the Third Punic War, reducing Carthage to ashes and enslaving its people.
The lesson was that goading a superpower can be a dangerous business.
In all seriousness - this is a good article and makes the point I was trying to make below rather better than I did.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10266969/By-crossing-Obamas-red-line-Assad-has-forced-the-US-to-act.html
The Argentinians invaded on 2nd April and you've quoted a poll nearly 2 weeks later to try and sustain your argument. Next time you start flinging the intemperate (how very Liberal) word bollocks around get your facts right.
The nuclear submarine Conqueror set sail from France on 4 April, whilst the two aircraft carriers Invincible and Hermes, in the company of escort vessels, left Portsmouth only one day later on 5 April. Upon its return to Southampton from a world cruise on 7 April, the ocean liner SS Canberra was requisitioned and set sail two days later with 3 Commando Brigade aboard.
By the 12th April the Task Force was already well on its way with broadcasts from the ships on the news, and sentiment against the Argentinians, and desire for recapture mounting, whipped up by the tabloids.
The other thing to note, which you're always careful about in national voting intention polling is how questions are phrased. This is particularly important when there's nothing to compare to. So for instance a series of questions offering six degrees of response to Syria, many heavily laden, will be unlikely to produce as strong support for action as a question weighted the other way such as 'Do you believe this country should take action against the dictator Assad following his use of chemical weapons in attack on civilians' etc. etc.
Facts. Check.
PS The site has shut me out on my old name and password for a while. I've tried to get it to reset the password, it says it has sent me an email, but nothing ever turns up. Has anyone else had this problem?
A West Midlands UKIP MEP has been told he cannot stand for the party in the next European elections. Mike Nattrass, who has been both chairman and deputy leader, was told he failed a candidate assessment.
He said: "I just want the members to decide who should stand, that's what the party rules say but those rules have been broken." In May 2012 he said he would retire before the European elections in 2014, but changed his mind shortly after. UKIP's candidate selection process involves a two-hour assessment which includes public speaking, an interview and a written test.
"Tens of thousands of patients are dying needlessly in hospital every year from kidney failure linked to dehydration, NHS officials have revealed.
They calculate that up to 42,000 deaths a year would be avoided if staff ensured patients had enough to drink and carried out simple tests. NICE, the NHS watchdog, is today issuing guidelines to staff to help them prevent deaths from the condition – known as acute kidney injury – which is common in the elderly and patients with heart disease, diabetes and blood infections.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403501/Thousands-dying-thirst-NHS-Watchdog-forced-issue-guidelines-giving-patients-water.html#ixzz2dEnibvgy
Don't challenge my integrity when I pointed to MORI polling that your assertion about the Falklands was totally wrong.
"If you had taken polls when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley you would have been lucky to find 1 in 20 wanting us to send a force south.
Source or apology please.
It's to prevent chemical weapon attacks.
Small problem. The rebels have already said they are prepared to retaliate with their own chemical weapon attacks and both sides have been implicated in their use before this.
So that's bollocks.
It will force the Russians to negotiate.
So why no ultimatum but instead a timetable for attack regardless of what the Russians or anyone else does? Obama pulled the U.S. out of talks with the Russians over Syria already back when he was annoyed that Putin wouldn't give him the whistleblower Snowden. The Russians will respond by escalating the firepower and support to Syria just as the U.S. wants to for the rebels. Sounds like a foolproof plan for a political solution with the welfare of the Syrian civilians foremost in everyone's mind, doesn't it?
This isn't like Iraq.
Then stop making the precise same idiot moves from Iraq by using the same arguments and not allowing the U.N. weapon inspectors the time to do their jobs properly . Does the name Hans Blix seem familiar? Simply repeatedly asserting that Assad was behind the chemical attack won't cut it. It's vacuous Blairite drivel and spin. It obviously needs proved for anyone to take it seriously as a cause for launching dozens of cruise missiles into Syria. If this was really about sending a message over chemical weapons then treat it like a war crime, let the weapons inspectors do their job and do what Amnesty International called for since 2011 and refer war crimes on both sides to the ICC to eventually try to prosecute those responsible. Instead we get the rush to bomb with the cheerleaders immediately pretending that bombing the shit out of Syria during an intractable civil war is the only possible solution.
Cammie's spinners don't get to pretend Assad is the only 'bad guy' or that the intelligence couldn't be just as flawed and easily manipulated as it was in Iraq.
Those who love to get involved in intractable wars don't exactly have a great track record of knowing how to get out of them.
The Argentinians invaded on 2nd April. You posted up a poll from 14th April, by which time the task force was merrily sailing south, the tabloids were whipping up the country and Maggie was turning her personal tide.
Notice I said 'if' you had taken a poll 'you would have been lucky'. I didn't say there was a poll taken on 2nd April. It was your sleight of hand that posted up a poll as if to disprove my point when it was actually taken a fortnight later.
Next time pause before throwing out an injudicious word like 'bollocks' just because it doesn't fit your personal political preferences. Mind you, like the good liberal you are you'll probably ban me for daring to say that.
I remember those times well. There was tremendous popular support for that war, which was caused by an attack on British territory, and the surrender of the governor and the platoon of royal marines on the Falklands.
The contrast with this unpopular war with a country that we have little connection with is striking.
The response by the Saudis below is astonishing if true, but given a choice between Russia or the Saudis give me the Russians any time.
2013 not about "removing Assad" , about chemical weapons.
Only difference as things stand, in 2003 their was a serious attempt to engage the UN, military preparations were better and the evidence of chemical weapon use was not disputed with casualties in 10,000s.
Independence is what it says on the tin.
"David Cameron annoys me by mouthing the arguments of limited warfare while reducing armaments."
If the chemical weapons were used by Assaad, Cameron ought to be asking why, and also considering why other states outside the Middle East are not getting involved. The Times photo of Cameron reminds me of action man poses by Gordon Brown - absurd shots of fat grey suited men in a hurry.
If it's thought to go well, there should be a bit of upside for the Government; if it's thought to lead to a bad outcome, a bit of downside, but generally even most political people think it's tricky and aren't fully engaged on either side of the argument - as noted, even Caroline Lucas isn't too sure. As with Libya, the fact that it's about long-range attacks with little obvious scope for Syrian retaliation means that people don't feel as strongly.
'Back me or sack me' becomes 'back me or I'll sack you' or 'back me or forget the reshuffle' . How a whipped vote stacks the deck
http://news.sky.com/story/1115922/syria-samantha-cameron-pushing-for-action
At least when SamCam was worried about the polar bears all Dave had to do was put a non-working windmill on their house.
Has anyone any ideas what the next fashionable causes among Soho Bohos are likely to be ?
But its more fuel for the theory that government policy is driven by Dave's insecurities.
It also reassures me that I did the right thing by joining UKIP.
Politically this could do for Labour what Iraq did for the Lib Dems. They could become the SOLE party of reason and legality (A long overdue Mikveh bath after Iraq). Opportunities to show leadership are rare for the opposition and they they don't come more gilt edged than this.
As Edmund says it's also a big chance for an opportunistic Lib Dem to secure the next leadership slot. A well timed resignation is probably all it'll take.
Firstly the position and advice of Dominic Grieve will be crucial. As Attorney general he will instruct the Cabinet as to the legality of military action against the Assad junta.
Secondly, the Prime Minister has cemented the precedent set by Tony Blair concerning the consultation of the House of Commons when military action is considered necessary. It's unlikely that any future Prime Minister would contemplate such action without the express approval of parliament even though he may still do so through exercise of the royal prerogative.
That said, in a non-party sense I largely agree with Richard Tyndall's analysis, though I'm not really sure. It does seem likely that Assad has used chemical weapons, and there's a case for having some red lines which everyone thinks it unwise to cross and showing it has real costs if one does. But we shouldn't be killing people unless we're sure it'll have net benefits, and it's hard to see how we can be remotely sure.
"It also reassures me that I did the right thing by joining UKIP."
Do I take it you are no longer a Tory?
Labour set to whip MPs to back Miliband stance over #syria - We whipped over iraq and Libya so fair to expect will whip over Syria.
50 yrs since Dr King's 'I Have A Dream'.. a Glaswegian man is claiming racial discimination after he was denied free ketchup with his chips.
Opinion within all parties seems to be in favour of limited intervention aimed at Syria's chemical weapons. How effective that might be given that the Syrian government's been given plenty of public notice is open to question. Quite how involved Britain might be is also open to question.
It's a measure of how far Blair's Chicago Doctrine has permeated the political class that all three parliamentary parties are broadly in favour of action, despite the public's opposition and the lack of a UN mandate. Even Lucas and the Greens are now having to face the reality that brutal dictatorships can't be stopped by a sit-in or a letter to the Guardian: you either stand by or you do something, and neither is particularly palatable.
But then on a purely domestic level, all the parliamentary parties want to play at being in government, as a parliamentary vote is tantamount to government by committee. None is interested in playing at being the opposition. Which is where UKIP once again has a chance to stand out (it is notable that UKIP's split is even more anti than the other parties', though presumably from a small base with a large MoE). The risk is that he will be accused of 'effectively being on Assad's side', but there are counter-arguments to that, not least that Assad's opponents aren't any better, that terrible though the civil war is, throwing more armaments in isn't likely to improve matters, and that enough British lives have been put at risk already through adventurism in the Middle East - and there are plenty who'd be receptive to them.
Sean Fear joins Ukip.
Mike Smithson hopes you can't see the join.