How can we "fix" Syria. Obviously, we can't. It's never going to become a western style democracy. What's the difference between someone in Syria killing a few hundred people with chemical weapons, and that crazy little git with the bad hair in North Korea torturing, killing and starving vast numbers of his citizens? If we believe the former is bad, and deserves intervention, why don't we act on the latter one as well? Why don't we demand action over wayward drone strikes?
@steverichards14: Blair got much wrong re Iraq, but he always knew he cd win a vote in the Commons. Cam agreed to a vote without knowing whether he cd win it.
That's like saying "Hitler got a lot wrong re the Jews, but he knew how to build a reliable Polish rail network"
Have you written your "Are the armchair warmongers mentally ill?" piece yet?
My problem is that there is almost too much material. See my recent comments, passim.
But I am planning a blog.
Writing threads/articles on Syria is a nightmare, events keep on getting overtaken
Just write "Cameron is Crap" in big letters, that covers most of the domestic angle.
What is this deviant canting bullshit about Chemical Weapons anyway? What makes them so bad? As I understand it, nuclear weapons can be a tiny tiny tiny bit less-than-pleasant, what with your eyeballs melting down your face if you are fifty miles from the impact zone, while your children in the downtown school are turned into steam, along with 100,000 other people.
But America (and the UK) has 100s of nukes, America is the only country to have used nukes, and America still maintains the right to use nukes.
But chemical weapons, where people cough and "spasm" before they die, are uniquely horrible? And therefore must be *banned*?
Why haven't we "banned" Islamists from chopping peoples' head off with dessert spoons? Why haven't we "banned" trench warfare, or mass garrotting, or shooting babies, or ballistic missiles which take out entire towns?
It's just cant. It's total bollocks. It's great power hypocrisy dressed up as a moral crusade (nukes are pricey but chemicals are cheap). It is the most unbelievable, embarrassing drivel and enough.
An indication of the difference is that the use of chemical and biological weapons were prohibited by the LoN in the 1920s. The horrors of their use were well known at that time, and many had sadly experienced them.
@steverichards14: Blair got much wrong re Iraq, but he always knew he cd win a vote in the Commons. Cam agreed to a vote without knowing whether he cd win it.
That's like saying "Hitler got a lot wrong re the Jews, but he knew how to build a reliable Polish rail network"
Have you written your "Are the armchair warmongers mentally ill?" piece yet?
My problem is that there is almost too much material. See my recent comments, passim.
But I am planning a blog.
Writing threads/articles on Syria is a nightmare, events keep on getting overtaken
OTOH there is ample room for satire. The position of the west is poisoned by the most incredible hypocrisy.
Do an Assad is like Churchill piece.
Churchill wanted to use Chemical weapons on the Kurds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10272555/Cameron-backs-down-on-urgent-Syria-strikes.html 'On Wednesday night, a senior Conservative source said: “Labour has been playing politics when they should have been thinking about the national interest. Their position has changed continuously over the last 24 hours — finally ending in demands they had never even hinted at before.”
The Americans were consulted before Mr Cameron’s decision was announced and senior White House officials are said to have made it clear that they “respect the British Parliament”.
'Ahead of Thursday’s vote, MPs will be given a dossier of evidence by Downing Street that Whitehall sources have described as “utterly compelling” proof of Assad’s involvement in chemical atrocities against his own people.
It will include details of YouTube videos believed to show atrocities being committed by the Syrian regime. '
Weep... Perhaps there's also a tweet in there from Assad, saying "I did it!"
He would also turn the vote on the issue of taking the country to war in Iraq into a threat that he would make it a resigning matter as PM if he lost it. Something which no doubt forced more than the odd Labour MP into towing his line on the issue of the Iraq War.
See if Blair was in charge today, and faced with the same numbers as Dave, we all know he'd sex up some intelligence which turned out to someone's dissertation off the internet
And nobody has a f*cking clue what is going on in Camerons head. You think he wanted this action but couldn't do the maths? So tell me why he brought back a load of backbenchers whou he hadn't bothered to ask what they thought
The backbenchers wanted to be recalled.
They will be briefed on events which have occured in Syria over the recess and consequent diplomatic discussions with all interested parties.
They will be asked to support by vote the governnent's position in negotiations at the UN.
Negotiations will take place at the UN.
If there is a need for Parliament to vote again then a new motion will be submitted.
That's it. Simple really. And of very minor significance given everything else that is going on.
I dont think pbc is a great site for posting random things people have recently been appalled by but I've just come across something which, without context or explanation admittedly, might just been one of the most appalling sentences I've seen written by a UK civil servant in modern times.
So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?
It's the wrong question. The right questions are:
A. Is the situation in Syria currently capable of an attractive solution? B. Is Britain empowered by some kind of mandate to decide what it is? C. If we believe we are so empowered - by some sort of global mission to promote humanity, perhaps - are we so sure we're right that we're prepare to start killing people to promote our view?
I don 't think we should fix the problem of Syria. It is, primarily, a matter for the Syrians, and the world is not helping to at all by pouring arms, training and now actual potential missile launched to favour the side we marginally less dislike. I'm been here, got the T-shirt, and got it wrong.
It's the perfect question (note, it does not say 'fix Syria's problems').
Chemical weapons have been used. Chemical weapons should not be used, and we do not want them being used for a whole host of reasons, not least the indiscriminate mass murder of civilians.
It has added a whole other dimension to the problem, one that Obama's 'red line' talk did nothing to help.
In the meantime, people die.
It's not really a new dimension. Chemical weapons were probably used quite some time ago.
Indeed. The scale of the latest attack appears bigger, and I guess (and it seems a good guess to me) that one of the reasons the attack triggered the reaction it did is that the 'allies' (if I can call US, France, UK, Turkey etc that) have good evidence of what went on.
But that's a guess, and we just don't know. Or it could be the scale of this attack, or the mechanism. Or maybe Obama just got sickened with the killing.
I stand by my comments below: the use of chemical weapons needs a response. Failure to do so could be very dangerous (as indeed could the wrong response).
And that's why I'm glad I'm not the one having to make the decision.
@Yorkcity If we're not going to act when we see film of children being subjected to chemical weapons, it's not going to happen.
That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.
It might be .
However the now or never is totally risible.
Its ramping up the rhetoric for a quick fix, with no strategy beyond saving Obamas red line.
No its not because you are working on the delusion that our opinion actually counts in this. By the end of the weekend this will have happened and we will have taken no part. You can argue (as in Vietnam) that that is the right decision but the fact is we have made a decision by default. We are not taking part in this and our image as the US's most reliable ally is greatly diminished.
That is why Hague is looking so gutted. The long term strategic implications of this may well be significant. And I say all of this as someone who was completely unconvinced that there was any justification for this at all.
Our opinion does count.
I was against the now or never line.
It is always the same even going back to Germany in 1914 with atrocities in Belguim.
1914 is the epitome of when "it's now or never" really was the case. We should never have got involved, but given that we did, it was critical we intervened early or France would have fallen.
Millions of british people would agree with you on that one, no involvement would have been a better situation, than the carnage that followed for many men of all classes of society.
Indeed. The scale of the latest attack appears bigger, and I guess (and it seems a good guess to me) that one of the reasons the attack triggered the reaction it did is that the 'allies' (if I can call US, France, UK, Turkey etc that) have good evidence of what went on.
< An indication of the difference is that the use of chemical and biological weapons were prohibited by the LoN in the 1920s. The horrors of their use were well known at that time, and many had sadly experienced them.
What a lot of wheedling academic twaddle. e.g. He doesn't mention nukes, which are far far worse than the nastiest chemical weapons devised so far.
Oh, wait, WE'VE got nukes and most of THEM haven't. And Israel relies on nukes. So nukes are, perforce, OK. Eyeball-melting is clearly a morally superior way to be murdered than lung-coughing?
Allow me to puke, either way.
Fair enough. Yours is a valid and understandable position.
But once something is invented, it is very hard to uninvent. Fortunately the world managed to get agreement to ban the use of chemical and biological weapons in the 1920s. Do we really want to let that ban become worthless?
The horrors of chemical weapons are such that neither side used them in World War Two, despite having the stockpiles and ability. Too many people could remember World War One.
Oh, and nukes are not necessarily worse than biological weapons, the potential effects of which really freak me out.
I've just realised I'm rambling. Off to bed for me.
(*) As I said earlier, the ideal would be for the people ordering the use of such weapons to face international trial. But the ICC has limitations, flaws and problems.
The arrogance of his statement this afternoon was unbelieveable. Basically, his postion was we will go to the UNSC but it didn't matter what they thought because we will do it anyway.
So why go there ?
He is looking like a fool tonight even more so than Cameron.
Miliband stands out amongst these politicians who simply misjudged the public mood, even the parliamentary mood.
Once again, what emerges is Cameron's lack of attention to detail.
In the Iraq/Iran war, chemical weapons were used by both sides, but mainly Iraqi, but I can't remember any one suggesting that we should bomb both out of existence. In fact we were so involved that at least one of the then UK cabinet ministers, plus the CIA and US officials were supposedly actually making money from selling weapons to both sides. Please read the Amnesty International and Private Eye reports of the time.
Indeed. The scale of the latest attack appears bigger, and I guess (and it seems a good guess to me) that one of the reasons the attack triggered the reaction it did is that the 'allies' (if I can call US, France, UK, Turkey etc that) have good evidence of what went on.
If it's so clear-cut where is it?
A good question. There's a difference between having good evidence of what went on, and having good evidence that can be released in public whilst protecting sources and means. But that's a very dangerous route to take to war nowadays, when the public rightly demand information.
I was expecting more to come out in relation to the UN discussion tonight, although those might be more of a damp squib now.
So the answer: God knows. But my initial comment might explain why this attack was treated differently from the previous alleged ones.
You have to feel sorry for poor Nick, people used to find him interesting. Now they'd hardly care if he personally found evidence of who fired the chemical weapons in Damascus.
Today has been very uplifting for me. I have been driving in West Country all day from one small town to another. Around lunchtime, I heard Luciana Berger on Radio 5Live. It was then I first realised that the Labour position was changing. It was then just that we will have to wait for the UN Inspector's report. Miliband hardened the position in the evening even further.
Fair enough. Yours is a valid and understandable position.
But once something is invented, it is very hard to uninvent. Fortunately the world managed to get agreement to ban the use of chemical and biological weapons in the 1920s. Do we really want to let that ban become worthless?
The horrors of chemical weapons are such that neither side used them in World War Two, despite having the stockpiles and ability. Too many people could remember World War One.
Oh, and nukes are not necessarily worse than biological weapons, the potential effects of which really freak me out.
I've just realised I'm rambling. Off to bed for me.
(*) As I said earlier, the ideal would be for the people ordering the use of such weapons to face international trial. But the ICC has limitations, flaws and problems.
Go to bed. Your entire comment is a lie. Britain experimented with vicious bio-weapons in 1942. They just didn't work.
Hitler would, likewise, have used them on us, if they had worked. But generally they don't. They are too indiscriminate and tend to make conquered territories undesirable, because they are poisoned.
It's not a lie (although I did not mention the hideous large-scale experiments performed by the Japanese that are denied to this day).
Experimenting with something is very different from using it. And the Gruinard tests were multi-faceted: to determine not just how we could use them, but what effect they would have if they were used on us.
And your final comment shows exactly why they are treated differently from conventional munitions, answering your earlier questions:
They are too indiscriminate and tend to make conquered territories undesirable, because they are poisoned.
Outmanouevering a chinless porpoise who doesn't know his own party? Not difficult I guess
"Where Miliband leads, Cameron follows. That is the political upshot of tonight's events. Everything we heard from Downing Street and William Hague earlier today suggested that MPs would vote tomorrow on whether to authorise British military action against Syria, despite the UN warning that its weapons inspectors would not complete their work for at least four days. But a few hours ago, after speculation that Labour was preparing to abstain, Miliband made his move.
The war that doesn't need to be fought is with an opposition Leader who simply wants to leverage the current international crisis for domestic party political gain.
There is no need to fight Miliband on the drafting of the motion tomorrow. It is irrelevant, does not interfer with any timetable agreed with our allies and has no significant impact on discussions in the UNSC, the next important step.
There was never going to be any military action before the UN Inspectors reported back to the UNSC. This was agreed with Russia (and all other participants) at the Northern Ireland G8.
Hague is an absolute master in pushing through agreements on very complex issues. Libya was a key example. Look back at the PB threads at the time and point out how many posters thought Hague would pull it off.
There is never anything to be gained in a negotiation by asking a question to which the answer is an unwanted "No!".
Miliband may think he has scored a hit, but it will cause Hague as much discomfort as an elephant suffers from a fleabite.
Miliband's problem is that he is all tactics and no principles. It is this, and his constant dithering and inability to make a decision, that has led to his negative poll ratings and reputation for being weak.
Can't you see this, tim? Just look at Miliband and compare him to Blair. They are worlds apart in competence.
Most amusing development of the evening: tim (and, to be fair, most of the media) have totally failed to notice Ed Miliband's huge U-turn on Syria. A couple of days ago action had to be authorised by the UN. Now the evidence only has to be presented to the UN.
Quite a few of my friends were at a "dont attack Syria" rally in Whitehall earlier. They must be in a state of shock now at the thought that someone was listening for once!
You have to feel sorry for poor Nick, people used to find him interesting. Now they'd hardly care if he personally found evidence of who fired the chemical weapons in Damascus.
I had just come home from work and hit the shower when I heard the headlines on the World Tonight on R4. In a way I hope Labour has done the country a favour but that has nothing to do with some pseudo legal balls about the UN or a bit political points scoring.
No, its because there is little practical point right now in the UK launching about 2% of the Tomahawk Cruise missile load.
If the planned assault is what its suggested to be, a military version of trying to be PH neutral, then it leaves serious and predictable doubts over its effects. You apply the kind of firepower that the US has to hurt and hurt badly.
Apart from the political cover, Britain could have done its duty by the US & others by doing some patrolling of the Med , support a NATO member in Turkey to against retaliation and watch US assets fly off from UK soil. Those things Britain can do anyway without any vote in parliament and likely will. It plays the game.
For me, from a 3rd party involvement point of view, this is now mainly America's mess. The US has held back earlier action that may well have sorted things out. This uprising started with people on the streets, army defectors and no significant sign of black flag carrying Islamists on a busman's holiday from Iraq. The West watched and made excuses. Syria didn't and doesn't have a deep thread of Islamic radicalism and global jihadism, this wasn't the Muslim Brotherhood hijack that it was in Egypt.
If we want to be involved then we should be involved in something absolutely wholehearted whether direct or indirectly. The proposed action may well spiral into something decisive if it combined with consistent support of certain insurgent units (see my post on 21st August about goings on in southern Syria & Jordan) or because sending in cruise missiles and some B-1's & B-2s for a 2-3 day jolly simply just results in more trouble that requires an increased response.
Whilst some kind of fist into water military action may just be possible, frankly its not much of an intervention of note unless it does any of the following:
a) -Brings factions to the table (plenty of people in the regime will talk if they don't believe they'll be hung from a tree)
b) -Prevents any re-use of chemical weapons or c) bluntly decisively tilts the conflict
Unless the US is bluffing and this turns out to be deliberately much bigger and more impacting by design or accident, then fine. Whatever you do, do it properly.
You have to feel sorry for poor Nick, people used to find him interesting. Now they'd hardly care if he personally found evidence of who fired the chemical weapons in Damascus.
Does anyone know what the Lib Dems have been up to? It may well have been Clegg who pulled the rug from under the porpoise
Haven't the foggiest.
Clegg might well have decided behind the scenes that his party couldn't survive supporting Cameron's mini-Iraq.
But given that they're in Government, the Lib Dem public silence has been pretty shameful (if understandable).
Cameron can`t even trust his own party to vote for his motion-Some `decisive leader` the Tory party have.Today he has been exposed for the PR man he really is,the first of many occasions I hope.
Most amusing development of the evening: tim (and, to be fair, most of the media) have totally failed to notice Ed Miliband's huge U-turn on Syria. A couple of days ago action had to be authorised by the UN. Now the evidence only has to be presented to the UN.
Can you link to a quote saying action had to be authorised by the UN please
The U.N. weapons inspectors need to be given time to do their job and their findings reported to the U.N. so that progress and action can be taken in the International Criminal Court to then find out precisely who is responsible for every incidence of chemical weapons usage in Syria (rebels and Assad) with a view to eventually prosecuting them for war crimes.
Anything else in unacceptable and will be massively counterproductive.
If the US and UK govt. position is automatic assumption of guilt of the Assad regime on any use of chemical weapons, after they have been determined to have been used, then the danger to civilians is incredible. It is a massive invitation for the rebels and the Al Qaeda elements among them to then drag the U.S. into launching cruise missile attacks on Assad every time chemical weapons are used. The Al-Qaeda factions (who are not unused to suicide bombing as a tactic) will hardly be squeamish if the outcome for any chemical attack is a military attack on the regime they are trying to topple.
Nor is the danger limited to Syria. If it becomes U.S. policy to attack a middle eastern regime when chemical weapons are used then the potential for their use elsewhere when there is internal strife and civil war is deeply worrying.
Those who dismiss that threat should remember that hundreds were slaughtered by the Egyptian Army after protesting against the Egyptian Military coup. Egypt has stockpiles of chemical weapons and is one of the few to have used them before. The danger will then be that those hardline elements opposing the military in Egypt will look on at Syria and see the consequences for a regime when chemical weapons are used and act accordingly.
If chemical warfare is to be deemed unacceptable then the correct procedures must be followed so that those responsible for it are prosecuted by the ICC and held responsible. Automatic assumption of guilt is simply nowhere near good enough given the murky and morality free tactics used by both sides in a civil war or uprising. The evidence for war crimes being perpetrated in Syria on both sides was overwhelming long before this.
Those who have used chemical weapons to be held responsible and brought to justice if the use of them is to be deemed sufficient cause to launch an attack. Anything else is sheer folly.
Parliament - including Ed Miliband - say to a PM and Foreign Secretary who are desperate to start bombing another sovereign country, with all the long term implications that that brings, 'We have waited 2 years, let's just wait a day or two to work out exactly what has happened and make sure we are sure that what we do is the right course of action."
And yet this translates to Labour playing partisan politics in the minds of a few PB posters. There are some really warped people at times on this site.
< An indication of the difference is that the use of chemical and biological weapons were prohibited by the LoN in the 1920s. The horrors of their use were well known at that time, and many had sadly experienced them.
What a lot of wheedling academic twaddle. e.g. He doesn't mention nukes, which are far far worse than the nastiest chemical weapons devised so far.
Oh, wait, WE'VE got nukes and most of THEM haven't. And Israel relies on nukes. So nukes are, perforce, OK. Eyeball-melting is clearly a morally superior way to be murdered than lung-coughing?
Allow me to puke, either way.
Fair enough. Yours is a valid and understandable position.
But once something is invented, it is very hard to uninvent. Fortunately the world managed to get agreement to ban the use of chemical and biological weapons in the 1920s. Do we really want to let that ban become worthless?
The horrors of chemical weapons are such that neither side used them in World War Two, despite having the stockpiles and ability. Too many people could remember World War One.
Oh, and nukes are not necessarily worse than biological weapons, the potential effects of which really freak me out.
I've just realised I'm rambling. Off to bed for me.
(*) As I said earlier, the ideal would be for the people ordering the use of such weapons to face international trial. But the ICC has limitations, flaws and problems.
Go to bed. Your entire comment is a lie. Britain experimented with vicious bio-weapons in 1942. They just didn't work.
Hitler would, likewise, have used them on us, if they had worked. But generally they don't. They are too indiscriminate and tend to make conquered territories undesirable, because they are poisoned.
The main reason big countries don't like WMD is that they would level the playing field between big countries and small countries.
Labour looking very, very arrogant tonight.... It will backfire as it always does....
Not as arrogant as the PR man who rushes around pretending to be a world statesman without checking whether he commanded the confidence of the House first.He wanted to attack Syria like yesterday without even letting the UN inspectors do their job first.Good job the UK has a sensible leader of the opposition.
He said it had to be legal. That means a UN resolution.
Don't tell me Labour have got over excited with the 'Ed plays a blinder' stuff again, and Ed has actually dropped himself in it. Ed had better pray this bit of back sliding doesn't get much publicity. The anti-war crowd will have his bottom.
A YouGov poll for The Times found support for firing British missiles against military sites in Syria dropped yesterday to 22 per cent, from 25 per cent on Tuesday, while opposition grew from 50 to 51 per cent.
Most amusing development of the evening: tim (and, to be fair, most of the media) have totally failed to notice Ed Miliband's huge U-turn on Syria. A couple of days ago action had to be authorised by the UN. Now the evidence only has to be presented to the UN.
Can you link to a quote saying action had to be authorised by the UN please
He said it had to be legal. That means a UN resolution.
Rubbish, you think Miliband thinks Kosovo was illegal?
We've been through this before, tim. You remember Iraq, right? And the charade over the second resolution? And the eventual advice that the first resolution was legal cover enough? What was that all about?
I do think you are right about the "special nature" applied to chemical weapon deaths. I think it is actually due to an inbuilt psychological fear. We can't imagine ourselves ever dieing as a result of a civil war, or the Syrian conflict some how ending up over there so we can just ignore it. But when it is something like Chemical weapons it's different an unfamiliar. Something which naturally makes us scared and paranoid.
Hence we feel the need to demand action. It's probably not about the dead - there are a 100,000 of those - but more our own insecurity.
Most amusing development of the evening: tim (and, to be fair, most of the media) have totally failed to notice Ed Miliband's huge U-turn on Syria. A couple of days ago action had to be authorised by the UN. Now the evidence only has to be presented to the UN.
Can you link to a quote saying action had to be authorised by the UN please
He said it had to be legal. That means a UN resolution.
Rubbish, you think Miliband thinks Kosovo was illegal?
You are right on a technicality, tim.
Miliband said "legal" (he was really just repeating the three conditions set out in the Security Council briefing).
And of course "legal" to a UK politician does not exclusively mean authorised under Chapter VII of the UN Charter by express resolution. Miliband is a child if not equal to Blair.
Now explain the nonsense about the UN Inspectors report. Why is Miliband calling for a decision to be delayed until the report is presented? I can understand why the Russians are demanding such a delay, but why Miliband? What information does he think the UN report will provide that he hasn't already been provided by British Intelligence?
Then we might not have had to endure the sorry sight of Cameron and Hague frantically beating to war, sullenly backing down, trying to find another position, and generally doing their best to show the world our country is run by over-excitable schoolboys.
The second most amusing development of the night is that thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people, including most of the media, have suddenly discovered to their surprise that this is a hung parliament.
Well, what a surprise that is. This is the New Politics, right? The PM doesn't have a majority, and had to try to build consensus, despite the opposition playing cynical games. Some people might even think it's a good thing, although it would work better if we had a principled opposition party.
Parliament - including Ed Miliband - say to a PM and Foreign Secretary who are desperate to start bombing another sovereign country, with all the long term implications that that brings, 'We have waited 2 years, let's just wait a day or two to work out exactly what has happened and make sure we are sure that what we do is the right course of action."
And yet this translates to Labour playing partisan politics in the minds of a few PB posters. There are some really warped people at times on this site.
No, IOS.
Labour's actions are entirely irrelevant to the strategy being pursued by Cameron and Hague.
That is why it took no more than a couple of hours to concede the point. It just didn't matter.
The second most amusing development of the night is that thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people, including most of the media, have suddenly discovered to their surprise that this is a hung parliament.
Well, what a surprise that is. This is the New Politics, right? The PM doesn't have a majority, and had to try to build consensus, despite the opposition playing cynical games. Some people might even think it's a good thing, although it would work better if we had a principled opposition party.
Forget the coalition partners,about 70 of his own MP`s were rumoured to rebel.So why the hell was he so gung-ho when his own position was so precarious.Weakest PM since John Major
Sky: Clegg has written to his MPs claiming the credit for 'pulling Cameron back'...
*snort*
Yes, just like he pulled Cameron back after his own lib dem members and MPs were astonished that Clegg was contemplating such things as Lansley's original idiot reforms, the snoopers charter, secret courts and various other polices Clegg belatedly realised the lib dem grassroots were hugely opposed to.
Now explain the nonsense about the UN Inspectors report. Why is Miliband calling for a decision to be delayed until the report is presented? I can understand why the Russians are demanding such a delay, but why Miliband? What information does he think the UN report will provide that he hasn't already been provided by British Intelligence?
So it sounds as if there's not a cigarette paper's difference between the Haguean position and Labour's 'amendment', other than a meaningless few days' delay. I'm starting to wonder if Dave and Ed came to some arrangement. Knowing that Ed would be under pressure from the far Left, perhaps Dave agreed to let Ed have his moment in the sun, agreeing that they'd be bosom buddies again when it really mattered next week. Clever.
Third most amusing development of the night: exactly the same people who usually complain that Cameron doesn't take enough notice of the views of backbench MPs criticising Cameron for taking notice of the views of backbench MPs.
"Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
I am moved to write what follows by a terrible feeling of powerlessness as the government of my country rushes towards a war for which it knows it has no mandate.
It appears that a decision has already been taken in Washington DC to launch some sort of attack on Syria. It also seems that the British government wishes to join in that attack. The House of Commons has been recalled but the behaviour of the Opposition Leader (and of the leader of the Liberal Democrats) suggests that they are not prepared to question this involvement with any vigour. If British people wish to oppose this bizarre and perilous adventure, it is therefore up to them to contact their MPs directly."
-More Russian evacuations out of Latakia with a 2nd flight late last night.
-US air sniffing aircraft designed to detect some interest things in the air has been in the Med.
-A large contingent of US aircraft including bombers and fighters has turned up East of Syria in the Gulf region. Possibly defensive, possibly offensive, possibly contingency
-Assad forces have done some serious dispersal in Damascus and as tradition has it have stuck military gear in the middle of urban areas to seek to protect it. Elements of airforce dispersed and seeking to hide. Certainly of the US actually wants to do some noticeable damage, it might need more than 60-100 cruise missiles and the odd drone. Will genuinely be surprised if some air assets are not put in.
-Suggestions are that the chemical stores are not going to be subject to attack. Either this is considered too risky, its a bluff in the hope the Syrians leave them at the 3 main locations (they do have limited time to truly transport all the gear) .
In reality the US has a capability to do something there, with inherent risks but it will need more than the cruise missiles.
If military action is taken in Syria, it's going to difficult to paint DC as weak. Tim seems to be making hay whilst the sun shines, but I get the sense SMukesh you actually mean it when you say "Weakest PM since John Major". Quite extraordinary.
Sky: Clegg has written to his MPs claiming the credit for 'pulling Cameron back'...
That doesn’t quite chime with the rhetoric he used only yesterday, according to the beeb – “Nick Clegg has called the use of chemical weapons in Syria "a repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law."
Speaking as Parliament was recalled to discuss the situation in Syria, he said the British government was "not considering regime change", but that standing "idly by would set a very dangerous precedent."
Now explain the nonsense about the UN Inspectors report. Why is Miliband calling for a decision to be delayed until the report is presented? I can understand why the Russians are demanding such a delay, but why Miliband? What information does he think the UN report will provide that he hasn't already been provided by British Intelligence?
So it sounds as if there's not a cigarette paper's difference between the Haguean position and Labour's 'amendment', other than a meaningless few days' delay. I'm starting to wonder if Dave and Ed came to some arrangement. Knowing that Ed would be under pressure from the far Left, perhaps Dave agreed to let Ed have his moment in the sun, agreeing that they'd be bosom buddies again when it really mattered next week. Clever.
What is best described as an "emergent strategy"!
In other words, we never intended this to happen but, now it has, it makes sense and can be counted as a strategic triumph.
That doesn’t quite chime with the rhetoric he used only yesterday, according to the beeb – “Nick Clegg has called the use of chemical weapons in Syria "a repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law."
Speaking as Parliament was recalled to discuss the situation in Syria, he said the British government was "not considering regime change", but that standing "idly by would set a very dangerous precedent."
No need to go back into ancient time as long ago as yesterday. Clegg, Danny Alexander and Ed Davey approved the policy today at the National Security Council Meeting.
If military action is taken in Syria, it's going to difficult to paint DC as weak. Tim seems to be making hay whilst the sun shines, but I get the sense SMukesh you actually mean it when you say "Weakest PM since John Major". Quite extraordinary.
There`s nothing particularly strong about hitting a man who can`t hit back!
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
Fourth (grimly) amusing development of the night: Labour cock-a-hoop because they themselves so trashed the credibility of UK governments over Iraq that they can make political capital by implying their principled successors are as dishonest as they were.
I suspect that both Cameron and Miliband will deliver statesmanlike performances in the Commons tomorrow. Then the UN will be 'presented' its 'report' and the conflict will be on. By then Dave and Ed's crafty little scheme tonight of suggesting dissonance where there was only harmony will be forgotten. Fair's fair to them both though - Dave doesn't want Davis doing anything other than ranting homophobically in London bars; Ed doesn't want Abbot stomping around on the back benches.
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
That doesn’t quite chime with the rhetoric he used only yesterday, according to the beeb – “Nick Clegg has called the use of chemical weapons in Syria "a repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law."
Speaking as Parliament was recalled to discuss the situation in Syria, he said the British government was "not considering regime change", but that standing "idly by would set a very dangerous precedent."
No need to go back into ancient time as long ago as yesterday. Clegg, Danny Alexander and Ed Davey approved the policy today at the National Security Council Meeting.
Cheers for the update Mr Nabavi – Must admit I’ve been away from the PC all day and not had a chance to catch up on the outcome of the NSC Meeting.
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
If they had any actual evidence it (whatever "it" was) was Assad they wouldn't be so narked.
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
So they're saying it wasnt Clegg's doing...
Is the morning thread sorted
Government says EdM Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***.
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
Colourful language and overquick judgements, but the truth remains that Miliband has today undermined his credibility as a potential Prime Minister in the eyes of the country's major allies.
And what has he gained? A couple of days domestic tactical advantage in annoying the government and pleasing the liberal media?
I believe that there is some evidence that chemical weapons were used by the Nazis at the battle of Kerch in 1942, when some Soviet troops dug into tunnels and refused to surrender.
Miliband has utterly misjudged this. Who the hell is advising him? Tonight he looks like a scheming weasel who prefers the 'Ed played a blinder' soundbites to painful decisions over conflict and humanitarian intervention; in a few days the anti-war crowd will have his a*rse when he signs up to the conflict anyway. Silly, silly, silly!
Is today the day Labour showed it put it`s Blair days behind itself!With Blair himself backing the action `as soon as possible` and with a Blairite Douglas Alexander as foreign secretary,Miliband has shown who is the boss.
UN inspectors and US intelligence get Tory backbenchers,Labour and Lib Dems back on board
Yes, that's quite a likely alternative, and would make Miliband look a bit of a berk, playing silly games for short-term partisan advantage (which he was).
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
I thought the Tories wanted to portray Miliband as a weak Hollande clone.
But of course if Cameron could command his own side Labours position would be irrelevant, but he can't.no matter what he told Hague
tim
The whole thing is irrelevant and will have absolutely no impact on the final outcome.
Now how about an answer to my question on the UN Inspectors' report?
U.S.: Al Qaeda-linked Group Behind Benghazi Attack Trains Jihadists for Syrian Rebel Groups
Ansar al-Sharia running training camps in Benghazi and Darnah
U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria’s Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials...
U.S. intelligence agencies believe Libya has produced more jihadist rebels for the Syrian conflict than any other outside nation. Some 20 percent of foreign jihadists in Syria came from Libya and that several hundred are currently in the country.
Over 100 Libyans were reported killed in Syrian fighting for such rebel groups as Al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Umma Brigade, Muhajirin Brigade, and Ahrar al-Sham, an Al-Nusra offshoot.
The jihadist training highlights the danger that Libya is becoming a breeding ground for al Qaeda terrorists. Officials said the weak central government in Tripoli has allowed Islamist militias to flourish, including in Benghazi and Darnah where the two factions Ansar al-Sharia groups operate..
A Pentagon report from August 2012 published by the Library of Congress stated that al Qaeda senior leaders and the group al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) “have sought to take advantage of the Libyan Revolution to recruit militants and to reinforce their operational capabilities in an attempt to create a safe haven and possibly to extend their area of operations to Libya.”
The report said al Qaeda is developing a “clandestine network” in Libya that could be used in the future to destabilize the government and offer logistical support for al Qaeda activities in the region.
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
Colourful language and overquick judgements, but the truth remains that Miliband has today undermined his credibility as a potential Prime Minister in the eyes of the country's major allies.
And what has he gained? A couple of days tactical advantage in annoying the government and pleased the liberal media?
This is just tittle-tattle in the papers.
Mr Obama seems pretty lukewarm about a Syrian adventure, so he might well welcome an excuse to do nothing.
Mr Cameron and the fanatics in the FCO are the ones who are miffed.
Isn't it curious that one thing we have barely heard mentioned is the reaction of Arab or wider Muslim world to any US attack
Strange. Usually one of the top things on the agenda for commentators. I that because so many of these countries are onboard or they be safely ignored?
I believe that there is some evidence that chemical weapons were used by the Nazis at the battle of Kerch in 1942, when some Soviet troops dug into tunnels and refused to surrender.
UN inspectors and US intelligence get Tory backbenchers,Labour and Lib Dems back on board
Yes, that's quite a likely alternative, and would make Miliband look a bit of a berk, playing silly games for short-term partisan advantage (which he was).
This could happen as soon as tomorrow, of course.
Richard
Can you remember all that nonsense about Hague messing up the evacuation of Brits from Libya before the airstrikes began.
The delays in ships docking and an abortive intelligence mission near Benghazi?
And all the predictions that Hague would have to resign?
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose as Hollande might be saying tonight in his Versailles palace.
Isn't it curious that one thing we have barely heard mentioned is the reaction of Arab or wider Muslim world to any US attack
Strange. Usually one of the top things on the agenda for commentators. I that because so many of these countries are onboard or they be safely ignored?
Actually, the real mess for Miliband will come when he has to decide whether to back the second vote approving UK involvement in an intervention. He may have caused panic in Downing Street tonight, but he will surely find himself feeling a little jittery if and when he has to explain to his party that he really does support intervention after all.
Comments
An interesting blog on this very issue:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/in-defense-of-the-double-standard-for-chemical-weapons/
Churchill wanted to use Chemical weapons on the Kurds.
'On Wednesday night, a senior Conservative source said: “Labour has been playing politics when they should have been thinking about the national interest. Their position has changed continuously over the last 24 hours — finally ending in demands they had never even hinted at before.”
The Americans were consulted before Mr Cameron’s decision was announced and senior White House officials are said to have made it clear that they “respect the British Parliament”.
'Ahead of Thursday’s vote, MPs will be given a dossier of evidence by Downing Street that Whitehall sources have described as “utterly compelling” proof of Assad’s involvement in chemical atrocities against his own people.
It will include details of YouTube videos believed to show atrocities being committed by the Syrian regime. '
Weep... Perhaps there's also a tweet in there from Assad, saying "I did it!"
They will be briefed on events which have occured in Syria over the recess and consequent diplomatic discussions with all interested parties.
They will be asked to support by vote the governnent's position in negotiations at the UN.
Negotiations will take place at the UN.
If there is a need for Parliament to vote again then a new motion will be submitted.
That's it. Simple really. And of very minor significance given everything else that is going on.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100232981/miliband-has-outmanoeuvred-dave-well-thats-a-first/
http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2013/08/24/home-office-refusal-letter-young-children/
"At two and three years old respectively, it is considered that x and y are of an age where they would be able to readjust to life without you."
God only knows what the circumstances were to result in someone writing that but it beggars belief that anyone could. Family values?
But that's a guess, and we just don't know. Or it could be the scale of this attack, or the mechanism. Or maybe Obama just got sickened with the killing.
I stand by my comments below: the use of chemical weapons needs a response. Failure to do so could be very dangerous (as indeed could the wrong response).
And that's why I'm glad I'm not the one having to make the decision.
On another forum, many years ago, I wrote a comment which wasn't complimentary about Churchill, it caused all sorts of anger.
Just think of the shares you'd get Sean
But once something is invented, it is very hard to uninvent. Fortunately the world managed to get agreement to ban the use of chemical and biological weapons in the 1920s. Do we really want to let that ban become worthless?
The horrors of chemical weapons are such that neither side used them in World War Two, despite having the stockpiles and ability. Too many people could remember World War One.
Oh, and nukes are not necessarily worse than biological weapons, the potential effects of which really freak me out.
I've just realised I'm rambling. Off to bed for me.
(*) As I said earlier, the ideal would be for the people ordering the use of such weapons to face international trial. But the ICC has limitations, flaws and problems.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/strike-assad-regime-british?CMP=twt_fd&CMP=SOCxx2I2#ixzz2dIkhb6VM
Nick Sutton @suttonnick
Spectator: - "Cameron's wars - How the Prime Minister became an apostle of the air strike" #tomorrowsmagazinestoday pic.twitter.com/qjTUPd0jkl
So why go there ?
He is looking like a fool tonight even more so than Cameron.
Miliband stands out amongst these politicians who simply misjudged the public mood, even the parliamentary mood.
Once again, what emerges is Cameron's lack of attention to detail.
BNP leader Nick Griffin calls gay Asian Manchester man ‘poof’ on Twitter
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/21/bnp-leader-nick-griffin-calls-gay-asian-manchester-man-poof-on-twitter/
I am shocked I tell you.
I was expecting more to come out in relation to the UN discussion tonight, although those might be more of a damp squib now.
So the answer: God knows. But my initial comment might explain why this attack was treated differently from the previous alleged ones.
But who knows how events will play out in the next few days.
But for now the stuffing is well and truly knocked out of the latest Ed is Crap "narrative".... poor Tories...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2334411/PETER-HITCHENS-We-set-Syria-ablaze--Now-hurling-explosives.html
You have to feel sorry for poor Nick, people used to find him interesting. Now they'd hardly care if he personally found evidence of who fired the chemical weapons in Damascus.
Ed has played a blinder today !!
Experimenting with something is very different from using it. And the Gruinard tests were multi-faceted: to determine not just how we could use them, but what effect they would have if they were used on us.
And your final comment shows exactly why they are treated differently from conventional munitions, answering your earlier questions:
There is no need to fight Miliband on the drafting of the motion tomorrow. It is irrelevant, does not interfer with any timetable agreed with our allies and has no significant impact on discussions in the UNSC, the next important step.
There was never going to be any military action before the UN Inspectors reported back to the UNSC. This was agreed with Russia (and all other participants) at the Northern Ireland G8.
Hague is an absolute master in pushing through agreements on very complex issues. Libya was a key example. Look back at the PB threads at the time and point out how many posters thought Hague would pull it off.
There is never anything to be gained in a negotiation by asking a question to which the answer is an unwanted "No!".
Miliband may think he has scored a hit, but it will cause Hague as much discomfort as an elephant suffers from a fleabite.
Miliband's problem is that he is all tactics and no principles. It is this, and his constant dithering and inability to make a decision, that has led to his negative poll ratings and reputation for being weak.
Can't you see this, tim? Just look at Miliband and compare him to Blair. They are worlds apart in competence.
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/full-text-of-labours-amendment-on-syria/
Looks like the government photocopied it as the new motion....
No, its because there is little practical point right now in the UK launching about 2% of the Tomahawk Cruise missile load.
If the planned assault is what its suggested to be, a military version of trying to be PH neutral, then it leaves serious and predictable doubts over its effects. You apply the kind of firepower that the US has to hurt and hurt badly.
Apart from the political cover, Britain could have done its duty by the US & others by doing some patrolling of the Med , support a NATO member in Turkey to against retaliation and watch US assets fly off from UK soil. Those things Britain can do anyway without any vote in parliament and likely will. It plays the game.
For me, from a 3rd party involvement point of view, this is now mainly America's mess. The US has held back earlier action that may well have sorted things out. This uprising started with people on the streets, army defectors and no significant sign of black flag carrying Islamists on a busman's holiday from Iraq. The West watched and made excuses. Syria didn't and doesn't have a deep thread of Islamic radicalism and global jihadism, this wasn't the Muslim Brotherhood hijack that it was in Egypt.
If we want to be involved then we should be involved in something absolutely wholehearted whether direct or indirectly. The proposed action may well spiral into something decisive if it combined with consistent support of certain insurgent units (see my post on 21st August about goings on in southern Syria & Jordan) or because sending in cruise missiles and some B-1's & B-2s for a 2-3 day jolly simply just results in more trouble that requires an increased response.
Whilst some kind of fist into water military action may just be possible, frankly its not much of an intervention of note unless it does any of the following:
a) -Brings factions to the table (plenty of people in the regime will talk if they don't believe they'll be hung from a tree)
b) -Prevents any re-use of chemical weapons
or
c) bluntly decisively tilts the conflict
Unless the US is bluffing and this turns out to be deliberately much bigger and more impacting by design or accident, then fine. Whatever you do, do it properly.
Clegg might well have decided behind the scenes that his party couldn't survive supporting Cameron's mini-Iraq.
But given that they're in Government, the Lib Dem public silence has been pretty shameful (if understandable).
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/83905/labour_statement_on_syria_ed_miliband.html
He said it had to be legal. That means a UN resolution.
Anything else in unacceptable and will be massively counterproductive.
If the US and UK govt. position is automatic assumption of guilt of the Assad regime on any use of chemical weapons, after they have been determined to have been used, then the danger to civilians is incredible. It is a massive invitation for the rebels and the Al Qaeda elements among them to then drag the U.S. into launching cruise missile attacks on Assad every time chemical weapons are used. The Al-Qaeda factions (who are not unused to suicide bombing as a tactic) will hardly be squeamish if the outcome for any chemical attack is a military attack on the regime they are trying to topple.
Nor is the danger limited to Syria. If it becomes U.S. policy to attack a middle eastern regime when chemical weapons are used then the potential for their use elsewhere when there is internal strife and civil war is deeply worrying.
Those who dismiss that threat should remember that hundreds were slaughtered by the Egyptian Army after protesting against the Egyptian Military coup. Egypt has stockpiles of chemical weapons and is one of the few to have used them before. The danger will then be that those hardline elements opposing the military in Egypt will look on at Syria and see the consequences for a regime when chemical weapons are used and act accordingly.
If chemical warfare is to be deemed unacceptable then the correct procedures must be followed so that those responsible for it are prosecuted by the ICC and held responsible. Automatic assumption of guilt is simply nowhere near good enough given the murky and morality free tactics used by both sides in a civil war or uprising. The evidence for war crimes being perpetrated in Syria on both sides was overwhelming long before this.
Those who have used chemical weapons to be held responsible and brought to justice if the use of them is to be deemed sufficient cause to launch an attack. Anything else is sheer folly.
Parliament - including Ed Miliband - say to a PM and Foreign Secretary who are desperate to start bombing another sovereign country, with all the long term implications that that brings, 'We have waited 2 years, let's just wait a day or two to work out exactly what has happened and make sure we are sure that what we do is the right course of action."
And yet this translates to Labour playing partisan politics in the minds of a few PB posters. There are some really warped people at times on this site.
Now announce it from the rooftops. Things might finally be turning around
Oh, yeah, whether it was legal!
I do think you are right about the "special nature" applied to chemical weapon deaths. I think it is actually due to an inbuilt psychological fear. We can't imagine ourselves ever dieing as a result of a civil war, or the Syrian conflict some how ending up over there so we can just ignore it. But when it is something like Chemical weapons it's different an unfamiliar. Something which naturally makes us scared and paranoid.
Hence we feel the need to demand action. It's probably not about the dead - there are a 100,000 of those - but more our own insecurity.
Miliband said "legal" (he was really just repeating the three conditions set out in the Security Council briefing).
And of course "legal" to a UK politician does not exclusively mean authorised under Chapter VII of the UN Charter by express resolution. Miliband is a child if not equal to Blair.
Now explain the nonsense about the UN Inspectors report. Why is Miliband calling for a decision to be delayed until the report is presented? I can understand why the Russians are demanding such a delay, but why Miliband? What information does he think the UN report will provide that he hasn't already been provided by British Intelligence?
An excellent post.
If only that was the Government position.
Then we might not have had to endure the sorry sight of Cameron and Hague frantically beating to war, sullenly backing down, trying to find another position, and generally doing their best to show the world our country is run by over-excitable schoolboys.
Well, what a surprise that is. This is the New Politics, right? The PM doesn't have a majority, and had to try to build consensus, despite the opposition playing cynical games. Some people might even think it's a good thing, although it would work better if we had a principled opposition party.
Labour's actions are entirely irrelevant to the strategy being pursued by Cameron and Hague.
That is why it took no more than a couple of hours to concede the point. It just didn't matter.
Yes, just like he pulled Cameron back after his own lib dem members and MPs were astonished that Clegg was contemplating such things as Lansley's original idiot reforms, the snoopers charter, secret courts and various other polices Clegg belatedly realised the lib dem grassroots were hugely opposed to.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
"Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War
I am moved to write what follows by a terrible feeling of powerlessness as the government of my country rushes towards a war for which it knows it has no mandate.
It appears that a decision has already been taken in Washington DC to launch some sort of attack on Syria. It also seems that the British government wishes to join in that attack. The House of Commons has been recalled but the behaviour of the Opposition Leader (and of the leader of the Liberal Democrats) suggests that they are not prepared to question this involvement with any vigour. If British people wish to oppose this bizarre and perilous adventure, it is therefore up to them to contact their MPs directly."
Super badger cull fixes bovine tuberculosis....
-More Russian evacuations out of Latakia with a 2nd flight late last night.
-US air sniffing aircraft designed to detect some interest things in the air has been in the Med.
-A large contingent of US aircraft including bombers and fighters has turned up East of Syria in the Gulf region. Possibly defensive, possibly offensive, possibly contingency
-Assad forces have done some serious dispersal in Damascus and as tradition has it have stuck military gear in the middle of urban areas to seek to protect it. Elements of airforce dispersed and seeking to hide. Certainly of the US actually wants to do some noticeable damage, it might need more than 60-100 cruise missiles and the odd drone. Will genuinely be surprised if some air assets are not put in.
-Suggestions are that the chemical stores are not going to be subject to attack. Either this is considered too risky, its a bluff in the hope the Syrians leave them at the 3 main locations (they do have limited time to truly transport all the gear) .
In reality the US has a capability to do something there, with inherent risks but it will need more than the cruise missiles.
Speaking as Parliament was recalled to discuss the situation in Syria, he said the British government was "not considering regime change", but that standing "idly by would set a very dangerous precedent."
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/28/nighthawks-is-now-open-10/#vanilla-comments
In other words, we never intended this to happen but, now it has, it makes sense and can be counted as a strategic triumph.
I distinctly recall Miliband finished up looking like he was on the last person in Britain to support Gadaffi...
The Government could not contain its fury. “No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***. The French hate him now and he’s got no chance of building an alliance with the US Democratic Party,” said one Government source.
Gin is also talking out his arse. Miliband supported the action before it happened.
Presumably Obama mounts proportionate and limited attacks with support from France, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Holland and even Germany.
Miliband portrays Obama, Hollande and Merkel as warmongers.
Hmm..
Government says EdM Miliband is a f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed s***.
And what has he gained? A couple of days domestic tactical advantage in annoying the government and pleasing the liberal media?
You've missed the point of the exercise.
This could happen as soon as tomorrow, of course.
The whole thing is irrelevant and will have absolutely no impact on the final outcome.
Now how about an answer to my question on the UN Inspectors' report?
And who in the Labour Party has already been presented with the evidence?
Mr Obama seems pretty lukewarm about a Syrian adventure, so he might well welcome an excuse to do nothing.
Mr Cameron and the fanatics in the FCO are the ones who are miffed.
Strange. Usually one of the top things on the agenda for commentators. I that because so many of these countries are onboard or they be safely ignored?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KZy_gRT1qu4C&pg=PA52&dq=kerch+gas+attack&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yXweUoLMIKuK1AWlk4HQCA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kerch gas attack&f=false
Can you remember all that nonsense about Hague messing up the evacuation of Brits from Libya before the airstrikes began.
The delays in ships docking and an abortive intelligence mission near Benghazi?
And all the predictions that Hague would have to resign?
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose as Hollande might be saying tonight in his Versailles palace.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/camerons-retreat-on-syria-vote-why-it-happened-and-what-it-means/