MaxPB - I do not support outight intervention on behalf of the rebels, but clearly a message needed to be sent AveryLP - Indeed, Murdoch does not represent every Republican in the US (and even his fellow billionaire Republican Donald Trump is also against)
But what's the message? Feel the wrath of our cruise missiles you dastardly Syrian civilians? Not really the message we need to send. A real message requires boots on the ground and a full military defeat of Assad for daring to use chemical weapons. However, that is not going to happen, so the message Obama has planned (lobbing in a few missiles) seems pretty hollow.
2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK;
'Diplomatic Power'. Could you describe how Blair's actions between September 11 and the Iraq War, setting the tone for the last decade, raised the independent diplomatic profile of the UK ?
Blair greatly raised the diplomatic power of the UK.
He was idolised in the US where he articulated George W, Bush's policies.
He was the most influential of all European leaders.
And his standing in the Middle East, even today as a US appointed special envoy, exceeded that of any post war British PM.
Now you may think he didn't his power to the best or right effect, but there was no doubting its strength.
He was laughing at the failure of Camerons idiot migration pledge today, he's catching up.
We can add self-awareness to the list of things he must envy you for.
I'd include "lack of cravats" too.
You'd be able to buy lots of lovely cravats if you hadnt lost so much money on really ridiculous Osborne bets. Think how much better your wardrobe would be If you'd only gained some insight into Osborne by reading a good biography of him.
"But it’s clear that up until the last moment Ed Miliband was telling Cameron and his own shadow cabinet that he supported the Government’s approach. He then changed his mind. And no serious politician, when it comes to matters of war and peace, can do that."
" Cameron had gone out of his way to make the motion tolerable: it would ensure the security council was briefed on the weapons inspectors' report and would then require a second Commons vote before it authorised war.
It was really very difficult to work out why someone who supported one motion should not be able to support another. The differences are trivial. Painting them as matters of high principle did not bode well.
By refusing to accept the watered-down government motion Miliband took what could have been an important moment of parliament challenging the executive over foreign relations and turned it into day-to-day point scoring.
Ed Balls did that annoying thing with his face. George Osborne sneered and snarled like he does every PMQs. MPs on all sides heckled, despicably.
It was a shameful episode and a wasted opportunity. But of all the disappointing things going on in the chamber, Miliband was probably the worst."
SMukesh At least Cameron was trying to do the right thing to stand up to a dictatorial regime, Miliband was playing politics
They're all playing politics. Cameron could have accepted Labour's amendment since he didn't have the votes on his own side to pass it. Apparently it wasn't hugely substantively different, so the only reason not to accept it would be the optics.
MaxPB - I do not support outight intervention on behalf of the rebels, but clearly a message needed to be sent AveryLP - Indeed, Murdoch does not represent every Republican in the US (and even his fellow billionaire Republican Donald Trump is also against)
But what's the message? Feel the wrath of our cruise missiles you dastardly Syrian civilians? Not really the message we need to send. A real message requires boots on the ground and a full military defeat of Assad for daring to use chemical weapons. However, that is not going to happen, so the message Obama has planned (lobbing in a few missiles) seems pretty hollow.
There'd be a battle inside the US administration. The bounced non-interveners would want to lob a few missiles into the desert somewhere . The interveners would say we need to bomb x, y and z CW places and then they'd say to do that they'd need to take out the Syrian air defenses and air force and all the anti-ship missiles etc and before you knew it they'd be bombing the **** out of everything and acting as the rebel's air force.
so the message Obama has planned (lobbing in a few missiles) seems pretty hollow.
Depends how you define 'a few' - there are at least 5 US warships and at least one sub in the eastern med.
However many, it is not going to bring about a military defeat of Assad, only boots on the ground will do that. Even after the shock and awe in Iraq, the US and Britain still had to put almost 200,000 troops out there to secure a military victory against a weak Saddam. The requirements to defeat Assad will be much higher. Missiles from range isn't going to do it.
The absolute final factor will be Obama himself. He already tried to create a certainty of outcome that you just cant have, hence the appeal to the Russians for a deal of a symbolic strike and a nice big peace conference. There was also, literally, a hope out of some in Washington that Assad would get a few craters nearby, sit on the naughty step for a bit and not use chemical weapons, job done and almost pre-agreed in advance.
The Russians have given their answer to some of the US fiddling; two warships that can happily watch US activity in the Med.
Some statements were due out Thursday further cementing the global coalition of the willing. but no sign. Always tomorrow but I suspect a last minute stall of some kind led out of Washington?
On the counter Obama knows a lot of credibility is at stake & he's is in a corner. The guy, however, has turned over direct military options so many times that its like watching a tumble dryer in action on a perpetual cycle. As days pass short sharp strike effectiveness probably gets diminished meaning you have to go longer to get a result..
If Obama wants to stick it to Assad with less fuss, all he had to do is boost the chosen insurgent capability in the South. If you look at what ( I suspect at least) prompted the chemical attack in Damascus, was that Assad's troops couldn't shift the insurgents, who in July started an offensive in the area. Potentially over half of Assad's remaining offensive combat capability is in Damascus and an area 50-60 miles around it, the fact that the insurgents went on the front foot and haven't got pushed back is showing the slog.
One reason why those insurgents have been able to hang on is they have externally supported supply chains which the US have involvement in.
The mere threat of force has had an immediate term impact. Some of Assad's combat capability may be degraded because many of his units have scattered, C3 has been disrupted and kit that previously was firing is now moving, some of it in circles
Plenty of officials have got out of town. Some won't be back and there are some sporadic signs that the events over the last week have frayed nerves amongst Assad's military and security apparatus.
On balance I think they'll do something, even if its half cocked. I take the view if you apply force, apply it with feeling and that is possible too. The fact that the UN mission is getting told to get out a day early is probably well informed.
Eventually an international force will have to be assembled to remove Assad from power. It could include troops from the USA, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Australia, the small Gulf states, etc. I'm talking about in a few years time.
so the message Obama has planned (lobbing in a few missiles) seems pretty hollow.
Depends how you define 'a few' - there are at least 5 US warships and at least one sub in the eastern med.
However many, it is not going to bring about a military defeat of Assad, only boots on the ground will do that. Even after the shock and awe in Iraq, the US and Britain still had to put almost 200,000 troops out there to secure a military victory against a weak Saddam. The requirements to defeat Assad will be much higher. Missiles from range isn't going to do it.
They've got auxiliary boots on the ground in the shape of the rebels. All the rebels need is air power.
2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK;
'Diplomatic Power'. Could you describe how Blair's actions between September 11 and the Iraq War, setting the tone for the last decade, raised the independent diplomatic profile of the UK ?
Blair greatly raised the diplomatic power of the UK.
He was idolised in the US where he articulated George W, Bush's policies.
He was the most influential of all European leaders.
And his standing in the Middle East, even today as a US appointed special envoy, exceeded that of any post war British PM.
Now you may think he didn't his power to the best or right effect, but there was no doubting its strength.
What's the point of a British PM being idolised in the US if he's just going to agree with them all the time? His standing in the Middle East????? I doubt that's very high.
Obama has no good options - doing nothing makes him look even weaker, boots on the ground is off the table, so we're left with the empty gesture to back up his unfortunate 'red lines' comment, and even this lays him open to the charge that whatever action he takes is simply to make him look less weak.
Choosing between Assad and the opposition, many of whom seem deeply unpleasant at best, is like having to choose which sexually transmitted disease you'd like to contract.
''However, that is not going to happen, so the message Obama has planned (lobbing in a few missiles) seems pretty hollow.''
Fair enough. What should the west's policy be? Sanctions?
For now, nothing in military terms. Humanitarian aid for civilians and sanctions against nations who provide military aid to Assad would be enough.
If the situation worsens then a full intervention can be revisited. The case must be undeniable though. Iron clad evidence must exist that Assad has ordered the use of chemical weapons to massacre people on a large scale before a full intervention should be sanctioned. Putin would have to be shamed into abstaining on a UNSC vote so it would need some hard ball tactics there, but if there was evidence of Assad's direct involvement in chemical warfare then Russian support would melt away quite fast.
David Cameron to be Conservative Leader at Next General Election 1/4 David Cameron to be replaced as Conservative Leader before the Next General Election 3/1 David Cameron to leave the post of PM during 2013 16/1
Time will tell whether the actions were "entirely without merit".
Probably very little time.
What are your hopes for them? To tilt the war in favour of the anti-Assad groups? Or to just kill a few random people?
I think I have made quite clear on PB what I thought Cameron and Hague's strategy on Syria was.
The main goal was to accelerate a negotiated and orderly transition of power in Syria.
The tactics were to get Russia to fall in line with the international community by co-operation within the UNSC and to use their influence with Assad (and possibly Iran) to get the regime to the negotiating table in Geneva.
The chemical weapons issue was both separate and connected. Separate in that it could be an issue resolved in isolation by the UNSC. And because, as an issue, it needed resolution independently from the wider Syrian conflict. Connected because it could act as a precedent and catalyst for negotiation to resolve the wider conflict.
Military action in response to chemical weapons was never part of a larger military strategy. It was a ploy to advance diplomatic goals. Yes the threat needed to be real and if Putin and Assad called Obama's bluff then missiles would have had to be launched. But on a plan for the best basis, there was a real chance that a resolution was possible without a military attack.
What I think we have lost today in this game, apart from our own influence, is the use of the UNSC as the body in which the conflict should be resolved. I also feel that the US are much keener on 'hit and run' gunboat diplomacy than its European allies. Punish and deter is Washington's preferred tactics. Our participation might have moderated US action.
You have to wonder why Obama is even bothering to try and appease the GOP hardliners and NeoCons after Banghazi. It's not as if they would ever give him the slightest benefit of the doubt should anything go wrong or not exactly to 'plan'. He'll never be hardline enough to please them and he's already putting himself on the wrong side of US public opinion for this.
His choice. I somehow doubt he'll find it one of his wisest given the rebels and Al-Qaeda factions he's aligning himself with against Assad.
so the message Obama has planned (lobbing in a few missiles) seems pretty hollow.
Depends how you define 'a few' - there are at least 5 US warships and at least one sub in the eastern med.
However many, it is not going to bring about a military defeat of Assad, only boots on the ground will do that. Even after the shock and awe in Iraq, the US and Britain still had to put almost 200,000 troops out there to secure a military victory against a weak Saddam. The requirements to defeat Assad will be much higher. Missiles from range isn't going to do it.
They've got auxiliary boots on the ground in the shape of the rebels. All the rebels need is air power.
As ever, my central point remains, do we really want these guys to win and take control of Syria? I'm not so sure...
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
so the message Obama has planned (lobbing in a few missiles) seems pretty hollow.
Depends how you define 'a few' - there are at least 5 US warships and at least one sub in the eastern med.
However many, it is not going to bring about a military defeat of Assad, only boots on the ground will do that. Even after the shock and awe in Iraq, the US and Britain still had to put almost 200,000 troops out there to secure a military victory against a weak Saddam. The requirements to defeat Assad will be much higher. Missiles from range isn't going to do it.
They've got auxiliary boots on the ground in the shape of the rebels. All the rebels need is air power.
As ever, my central point remains, do we really want these guys to win and take control of Syria? I'm not so sure...
That's the key point, yes.
This isn't about chemical weapons it's about regime change with chemical weapons as an excuse. The problem is the people lined up as auxiliary boots on the ground are at least as bad as Assad and possibly worse.
2) A diminution of the diplomatic power of the UK;
'Diplomatic Power'. Could you describe how Blair's actions between September 11 and the Iraq War, setting the tone for the last decade, raised the independent diplomatic profile of the UK ?
Blair greatly raised the diplomatic power of the UK.
He was idolised in the US where he articulated George W, Bush's policies.
He was the most influential of all European leaders.
And his standing in the Middle East, even today as a US appointed special envoy, exceeded that of any post war British PM.
Now you may think he didn't his power to the best or right effect, but there was no doubting its strength.
What's the point of a British PM being idolised in the US if he's just going to agree with them all the time? His standing in the Middle East????? I doubt that's very high.
Blair had a strong influence over Bush, probably even more than Thatcher had over Reagan.
But that says more about the difference between Reagan and Dubya than about that between Blair and Thatcher.
And it is simply wrong to state that Blair simply followed US policy. It was two way traffic.
You have to wonder why Obama is even bothering to try and appease the GOP hardliners and NeoCons after Banghazi. It's not as if they would ever give him the slightest benefit of the doubt should anything go wrong or not exactly to 'plan'. He'll never be hardline enough to please them and he's already putting himself on the wrong side of US public opinion for this.
His choice. I somehow doubt he'll find it one of his wisest given the rebels and Al-Qaeda factions he's aligning himself with against Assad.
I think you are misreading the politics over here - There is no stomach here for boots on the ground or any major involvement in Syria - read Speaker Boehner's letter to POTUS - hardly that of a hardliner or neocon. He asks some serious and important questions which need answering.
This isn't about chemical weapons it's about regime change with chemical weapons as an excuse. The problem is the people lined up as auxiliary boots on the ground are at least as bad as Assad and possibly worse.
Which is why I keep going back to a US/UK invasion and peacekeeping force. The auxiliary boots are ones we don't want to take over which means we need to put our own people there to oversee a transition of power to some kind of democratic government. I don't see that as a viable option.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
The US and UK knew of 13 previous cases of chemical waefare in Syria but chose to do nothing about it before .........because they are powerless.
Remember the Peter Cook sketch about the Second World War where the RAF pilot is told to make a futile gesture and not return? Cameron's position was to make a futile gesture by lobbing a few bombs at Syria.
You have to wonder why Obama is even bothering to try and appease the GOP hardliners and NeoCons after Banghazi. It's not as if they would ever give him the slightest benefit of the doubt should anything go wrong or not exactly to 'plan'. He'll never be hardline enough to please them and he's already putting himself on the wrong side of US public opinion for this.
His choice. I somehow doubt he'll find it one of his wisest given the rebels and Al-Qaeda factions he's aligning himself with against Assad.
I think you are misreading the politics over here - There is no stomach here for boots on the ground or any major involvement in Syria - read Speaker Boehner's letter to POTUS - hardly that of a hardliner or neocon. He asks some serious and important questions which need answering.
Boehmer's questions are all pertinent, but I somewhat get the feeling that Obama will just pass the letter to his aides with the instruction to "draft a reply" for me.
Boehmer seems to be missing the wood for the trees.
The key decision is whether to intervene. Once that is made all the subsidiary strategies and tactics and contingencies can be developed by Adminstration staff.
You have to wonder why Obama is even bothering to try and appease the GOP hardliners and NeoCons after Banghazi. It's not as if they would ever give him the slightest benefit of the doubt should anything go wrong or not exactly to 'plan'. He'll never be hardline enough to please them and he's already putting himself on the wrong side of US public opinion for this.
His choice. I somehow doubt he'll find it one of his wisest given the rebels and Al-Qaeda factions he's aligning himself with against Assad.
I think you are misreading the politics over here - There is no stomach here for boots on the ground or any major involvement in Syria - read Speaker Boehner's letter to POTUS - hardly that of a hardliner or neocon. He asks some serious and important questions which need answering.
This isn't supposed to be about boots on the ground and if I'm misreading it so much then why does the likes of Boehner have no problem with this kind of 'red line' intervention which he explicitly says he agrees with.
Since March of 2011, your policy has been to call for a stop to the violence in Syria and to advocate for a political transition to a more democratic form of government. On August 18, 2012, you called for President Assad’s resignation, adding his removal as part of the official policy of the United States. In addition, it has been the objective of the United States to prevent the use or transfer of chemical weapons. I support these policies and publically agreed with you when you established your red line regarding the use or transfer of chemical weapons last August.
If he wants a more transparent process then fair enough but it's disingenuous to imply that the GOP don't also want a military intervention and the 'red line' is what has gotten Obama into this mess.
This isn't about chemical weapons it's about regime change with chemical weapons as an excuse. The problem is the people lined up as auxiliary boots on the ground are at least as bad as Assad and possibly worse.
Which is why I keep going back to a US/UK invasion and peacekeeping force. The auxiliary boots are ones we don't want to take over which means we need to put our own people there to oversee a transition of power to some kind of democratic government. I don't see that as a viable option.
Pretty much agree with that. Whoever loses an ethno-sectarian civil war is going to lose in particularly nasty ways so if you intervene in one it ought to be in the middle rather on either side.
Boehmer's questions are all pertinent, but I somewhat get the feeling that Obama will just pass the letter to his aides with the instruction to "draft a reply" for me.
Boehmer seems to be missing the wood for the trees.
The key decision is whether to intervene. Once that is made all the subsidiary strategies and tactics and contingencies can be developed by Adminstration staff.
We then get into whether the president can intervene without Congressional approval according to the constitution, which brings us to the war powers act and it gets quite messy.
On one level it's kinda sad. When I first came here to live in the 70s, almost everyone I met would say - on finding I was English - "You must lurve that Monny Pythahn."
Even today, on more occasions than I care to admit, someone in a bar will start with a quote and we're off reciting 45 year old Python sketches.
Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: “I think there is an issue now that the relationship between Mr Cameron as Prime Minister and many of his own MPs is now fractured.”
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
Pride comes before a fall.
Dickson
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Boehmer's questions are all pertinent, but I somewhat get the feeling that Obama will just pass the letter to his aides with the instruction to "draft a reply" for me.
Boehmer seems to be missing the wood for the trees.
The key decision is whether to intervene. Once that is made all the subsidiary strategies and tactics and contingencies can be developed by Adminstration staff.
We then get into whether the president can intervene without Congressional approval according to the constitution, which brings us to the war powers act and it gets quite messy.
My advice to Obama is to ignore Congress altogether.
Boehmer's questions are all pertinent, but I somewhat get the feeling that Obama will just pass the letter to his aides with the instruction to "draft a reply" for me.
Boehmer seems to be missing the wood for the trees.
The key decision is whether to intervene. Once that is made all the subsidiary strategies and tactics and contingencies can be developed by Adminstration staff.
We then get into whether the president can intervene without Congressional approval according to the constitution, which brings us to the war powers act and it gets quite messy.
My advice to Obama is to ignore Congress altogether.
Considering the number of Tory and Lib Dem MPs who voted with Labour, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs, I think that you would be unwise to adopt that line.
Then we would be robbed of the hilarity from the comedy spinners as they underline just how clueless they are by adopting Blair's supremely counterproductive Iraq style spin.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
Pride comes before a fall.
Dickson
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Understandable but wrong.
You can give out lessons when you apologise for referring to Syrians as "a bunch of rag-heads" yesterday.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
Pride comes before a fall.
Dickson
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Understandable but wrong.
You can give out lessons when you apologise for referring to Syrians as "a bunch of rag-heads" yesterday.
My reference most certainly wasn't limited to the Syrians.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
Pride comes before a fall.
Dickson
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Understandable but wrong.
You can give out lessons when you apologise for referring to Syrians as "a bunch of rag-heads" yesterday.
My reference most certainly wasn't limited to the Syrians.
If Tories ever wonder why they are so widely despised, you have a big, fat clue right there.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
Pride comes before a fall.
Dickson
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Understandable but wrong.
You can give out lessons when you apologise for referring to Syrians as "a bunch of rag-heads" yesterday.
My reference most certainly wasn't limited to the Syrians.
If Tories ever wonder why they are so widely despised, you have a big, fat clue right there.
And here was I thinking you were a Tartan Tory, Stuart.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
Pride comes before a fall.
Dickson
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Understandable but wrong.
You can give out lessons when you apologise for referring to Syrians as "a bunch of rag-heads" yesterday.
My reference most certainly wasn't limited to the Syrians.
If Tories ever wonder why they are so widely despised, you have a big, fat clue right there.
And here was I thinking you were a Tartan Tory, Stuart.
It's normal in this type of vote for MP's to abstain/vote against their party as happened with the Iraq vote,Ed after promising to support the government on Tuesday u-turned and played party politics.
Assad is happy, Ed is happy but must be bricking himself that there won't be another chemical massacre..
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
I think you are articulating popular US views.
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
The conjurer and the steel band think that they are very important.
Pride comes before a fall.
Dickson
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Understandable but wrong.
You can give out lessons when you apologise for referring to Syrians as "a bunch of rag-heads" yesterday.
My reference most certainly wasn't limited to the Syrians.
If Tories ever wonder why they are so widely despised, you have a big, fat clue right there.
And here was I thinking you were a Tartan Tory, Stuart.
I am a liberal. Small l.
You obviously prefer to be pitied rather than despised!
Ronnie Campbell Jim Fitzpatrick Sian James Grahame Morris Graham Stringer Stephen Hepburn
So, if those 6 Labour MPs voted against the Labour amendment, and 30 Labour MPs didn't bother to come back from their holiday, it must mean that the Con-LD revolt was absolutely huge.
"Embarrassment was heaped on humiliation as it emerged that at least four government ministers failed to vote, apparently because they failed to hear the division bell.
Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, was seen remonstrating with Commons officials. Mark Simmonds, a Foreign Office Minister, was also named by government sources as having missed the vote."
Per R5L: Ken Clarke didn't vote - he put out a statement saying he couldn't vote due to family commitments (or something similar) but said very firmly that he supported the Government motion.
Hypothetical military question: Imagine Obama gets cold feet, and Cameron gives up. But the rest of the EU is still totally up for an air strike on some symbolic Syrian target. Would France or anyone else in the EU have the capability to do anything?
Mark Simmonds, a Foreign Office Minister, was also named by government sources as having missed the vote."
UKIP "won" his constituency in the local elections. He is probably now listening very intently to his constituents, which may make it hard to hear the division bell.
Hypothetical military question: Imagine Obama gets cold feet, and Cameron gives up. But the rest of the EU is still totally up for an air strike on some symbolic Syrian target. Would France or anyone else in the EU have the capability to do anything?
If they all got together and collected every plane they had between them and a base somewhere like Turkey i guess they could. I don't think any of them could do it on their own from a standing start like the US can. They'd need time to build up in advance.
Let's hope that from now on the West accept that bombing countries who's behaviour they find unacceptable is consigned to the last century and they find a more civilized way to confront international outrages.
The fact that Israel were able to use phosphorus bombs in Gaza without sanction shows it to be no more than bullying by the powerful on the weak.
This not only causes resentment but teaches that physical power is everything and encourages powerless nations to go on a weapons chase
Things are rarely as good or bad as they at first seem, but yesterday was a bad day for Cameron and the Govt. Totally misread the country and his own party, undoubtedly poor strategy and tactics on the whole Syrian affair. I agree with the outcome of "do nothing" but how it has been arrived at was just poor.
Milliband was I think uncertain but events have conspired to make him look measured rather than "cavalier". The "weak" argument (which he is I still think) is harder to make stick. In the wider context of the polls we shall see how it plays, but with Ed having had a crap Summer, the economy showing some signs of life (even if still on debt steroids), Cameron really has taken aim and blown his big toe off here for the moment at precisely the time he was somewhat on the front foot.
Given the voting system may mean Ed only needs 35% too, I am somewhat reminded of Napoleon's supposed maxim for selecting generals: Never mind if he's any good, is he lucky?
Just another note; The Syrian people may just look on in wonder at a leader who says "ok we're going to do X", only for the democratically elected people's representatives to have a real open discussion and the say "no, not a good idea, cease and desist", - and he does. Sometimes we might forget we are lucky to live in such a place.
Comments
2h
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan
Cameron just got punished for what Blair did. Simple as that. #Iraq
He was idolised in the US where he articulated George W, Bush's policies.
He was the most influential of all European leaders.
And his standing in the Middle East, even today as a US appointed special envoy, exceeded that of any post war British PM.
Now you may think he didn't his power to the best or right effect, but there was no doubting its strength.
Fair enough. What should the west's policy be? Sanctions?
"But it’s clear that up until the last moment Ed Miliband was telling Cameron and his own shadow cabinet that he supported the Government’s approach. He then changed his mind. And no serious politician, when it comes to matters of war and peace, can do that."
Ian Dunt in Politics.co.uk - Syria debate verdict: A terrible moment for Ed Miliband
" Cameron had gone out of his way to make the motion tolerable: it would ensure the security council was briefed on the weapons inspectors' report and would then require a second Commons vote before it authorised war.
It was really very difficult to work out why someone who supported one motion should not be able to support another. The differences are trivial. Painting them as matters of high principle did not bode well.
By refusing to accept the watered-down government motion Miliband took what could have been an important moment of parliament challenging the executive over foreign relations and turned it into day-to-day point scoring.
Ed Balls did that annoying thing with his face. George Osborne sneered and snarled like he does every PMQs. MPs on all sides heckled, despicably.
It was a shameful episode and a wasted opportunity. But of all the disappointing things going on in the chamber, Miliband was probably the worst."
Enough to make the Syrian rebels very happy indeed but nowhere near enough to 'win' an intractable civil war.
The absolute final factor will be Obama himself. He already tried to create a certainty of outcome that you just cant have, hence the appeal to the Russians for a deal of a symbolic strike and a nice big peace conference. There was also, literally, a hope out of some in Washington that Assad would get a few craters nearby, sit on the naughty step for a bit and not use chemical weapons, job done and almost pre-agreed in advance.
The Russians have given their answer to some of the US fiddling; two warships that can happily watch US activity in the Med.
Some statements were due out Thursday further cementing the global coalition of the willing. but no sign. Always tomorrow but I suspect a last minute stall of some kind led out of Washington?
On the counter Obama knows a lot of credibility is at stake & he's is in a corner. The guy, however, has turned over direct military options so many times that its like watching a tumble dryer in action on a perpetual cycle. As days pass short sharp strike effectiveness probably gets diminished meaning you have to go longer to get a result..
If Obama wants to stick it to Assad with less fuss, all he had to do is boost the chosen insurgent capability in the South. If you look at what ( I suspect at least) prompted the chemical attack in Damascus, was that Assad's troops couldn't shift the insurgents, who in July started an offensive in the area. Potentially over half of Assad's remaining offensive combat capability is in Damascus and an area 50-60 miles around it, the fact that the insurgents went on the front foot and haven't got pushed back is showing the slog.
One reason why those insurgents have been able to hang on is they have externally supported supply chains which the US have involvement in.
The mere threat of force has had an immediate term impact. Some of Assad's combat capability may be degraded because many of his units have scattered, C3 has been disrupted and kit that previously was firing is now moving, some of it in circles
Plenty of officials have got out of town. Some won't be back and there are some sporadic signs that the events over the last week have frayed nerves amongst Assad's military and security apparatus.
On balance I think they'll do something, even if its half cocked. I take the view if you apply force, apply it with feeling and that is possible too. The fact that the UN mission is getting told to get out a day early is probably well informed.
Unspoofable. ;^ )
2013 22/1 (Bet365, YouWin)
2014 11/2 (PaddyPower, StanJames)
2015 1/5 (Ladbrokes, Hills)
He was idolised in the US where he articulated George W, Bush's policies."
You've got it in one. The diplomatic power he built up was principally in service of, and derived from, another country ; in which he was idolised.
"And his standing in the Middle East, even today as a US appointed special envoy, exceeded that of any post war British PM."
This is, frankly, bizarre.
Choosing between Assad and the opposition, many of whom seem deeply unpleasant at best, is like having to choose which sexually transmitted disease you'd like to contract.
If the situation worsens then a full intervention can be revisited. The case must be undeniable though. Iron clad evidence must exist that Assad has ordered the use of chemical weapons to massacre people on a large scale before a full intervention should be sanctioned. Putin would have to be shamed into abstaining on a UNSC vote so it would need some hard ball tactics there, but if there was evidence of Assad's direct involvement in chemical warfare then Russian support would melt away quite fast.
David Cameron to be Conservative Leader at Next General Election 1/4
David Cameron to be replaced as Conservative Leader before the Next General Election 3/1
David Cameron to leave the post of PM during 2013 16/1
The main goal was to accelerate a negotiated and orderly transition of power in Syria.
The tactics were to get Russia to fall in line with the international community by co-operation within the UNSC and to use their influence with Assad (and possibly Iran) to get the regime to the negotiating table in Geneva.
The chemical weapons issue was both separate and connected. Separate in that it could be an issue resolved in isolation by the UNSC. And because, as an issue, it needed resolution independently from the wider Syrian conflict. Connected because it could act as a precedent and catalyst for negotiation to resolve the wider conflict.
Military action in response to chemical weapons was never part of a larger military strategy. It was a ploy to advance diplomatic goals. Yes the threat needed to be real and if Putin and Assad called Obama's bluff then missiles would have had to be launched. But on a plan for the best basis, there was a real chance that a resolution was possible without a military attack.
What I think we have lost today in this game, apart from our own influence, is the use of the UNSC as the body in which the conflict should be resolved. I also feel that the US are much keener on 'hit and run' gunboat diplomacy than its European allies. Punish and deter is Washington's preferred tactics. Our participation might have moderated US action.
His choice. I somehow doubt he'll find it one of his wisest given the rebels and Al-Qaeda factions he's aligning himself with against Assad.
Nick Clegg 1/3
Vince Cable 4/1
Tim Farron 6/1
David Laws 11/1
Ed Davey 12/1
Norman Lamb 12/1
Simon Hughes 16/1
Danny Alexander 25/1
Will Obama take note of the UK position and also step back from some gratuitous bombing of Syria?
If Obama has any sense (which I think he does) then he will step back from military action and revert to diplomacy.
Note that Nigel Farage was the first leader to oppose military action. The rest have jumped on the bandwagon.
1) 99% of Americans know that Blair was PM, then he fell off the radar. I doubt most Americans have any idea of his middle east envoy job.
2) The vote Cameron lost is viewed here pretty much as democracy in action. It would be nice to have the UK in a coalition of the willing, but it's not a big deal. It will make no difference to what - if anything - the US does. The appearance of a multi-nation alliance is the key, even if all the UK supplied was a conjurer and a steel band.
This isn't about chemical weapons it's about regime change with chemical weapons as an excuse. The problem is the people lined up as auxiliary boots on the ground are at least as bad as Assad and possibly worse.
But that says more about the difference between Reagan and Dubya than about that between Blair and Thatcher.
And it is simply wrong to state that Blair simply followed US policy. It was two way traffic.
http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-seeks-answers-president-obama-syria
The attitudes of the diplomatic and political powers in Washington will be different. Britain is used as a bridge to other US allies in Europe. The conjurer and steel band is very important.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/increase-in-net-uk-migration-causes-headache-for-tories-8789090.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425399/Running-out-of-options-Immigration-into-UK-on-the-up-as-British-nationals-emigrate
Pride comes before a fall.
Yes, I am reflecting popular US views - hence the 'US perspective'.
The UK can STILL be used as a bridge to other allies in Europe. It just needs to be in a more subtle way.
The band is important if it's Black Dyke Mills Band :-)
The US and UK knew of 13 previous cases of chemical waefare in Syria but chose to do nothing about it before .........because they are powerless.
Remember the Peter Cook sketch about the Second World War where the RAF pilot is told to make a futile gesture and not return? Cameron's position was to make a futile gesture by lobbing a few bombs at Syria.
Boehmer seems to be missing the wood for the trees.
The key decision is whether to intervene. Once that is made all the subsidiary strategies and tactics and contingencies can be developed by Adminstration staff.
This isn't supposed to be about boots on the ground and if I'm misreading it so much then why does the likes of Boehner have no problem with this kind of 'red line' intervention which he explicitly says he agrees with. If he wants a more transparent process then fair enough but it's disingenuous to imply that the GOP don't also want a military intervention and the 'red line' is what has gotten Obama into this mess.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/JC-penultimatesupper.php
'It looks even more desperate tonight'
Yes,Ed's new mate Assad is delighted.
Tim Farron also had god news from by-election in Bowness N in his constituency
LD 431
CON 248
LAB 29
Even today, on more occasions than I care to admit, someone in a bar will start with a quote and we're off reciting 45 year old Python sketches.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10275285/Dozens-of-Conservative-MPs-defied-David-Cameron-over-Syria.html
And even I cannot spin a drop in the Lib Dem vote from 65% to 61% as a disaster.
My nipples explode with delight.
Do you want to go to my place - bouncy bouncy?
Drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait until lunchtime!
Ed reneged on his earlier undertaking on Tuesday,played party politics & led the charge.
You are muddling independence, isolation and irrelevance.
Understandable but wrong.
In 1977 actor Dirk Bogarde made use of the phrase when he titled the first volume of his autobiography A Postillion Struck By Lightning.
- Please may I fondle your buttocks?
Look at the mess Cameron got himself into today.
It simply isn't worth it.
No official list yet, but here’s an *unconfirmed list* of Lib Dem MPs thought to have abstained or voted against the Government:
Gordon Birtwhistle
Malcolm Bruce
Paul Burstow
Tim Farron
Andrew George
Julian Huppert
John Pugh
Ian Swales
Sarah Teather
Roger Williams
(David Ward)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/government-defeated-on-syria-motion-by-13-votes-35953.html
Shoot first and pass the bills onto Congress.
It's normal in this type of vote for MP's to abstain/vote against their party as happened with the Iraq vote,Ed after promising to support the government on Tuesday u-turned and played party politics.
Assad is happy, Ed is happy but must be bricking himself that there won't be another chemical massacre..
The traditional head-dress is not a tea-towel so it is technically incorrect to address the wearer as a towel head.
Neither is it a rag so you can't use the term rag-head.
The correct description of material in the head-dress is a sheet, therefore the wearer should be referred to as a .... err ...
Ronnie Campbell
Jim Fitzpatrick
Sian James
Grahame Morris
Graham Stringer
Stephen Hepburn
So, if those 6 Labour MPs voted against the Labour amendment, and 30 Labour MPs didn't bother to come back from their holiday, it must mean that the Con-LD revolt was absolutely huge.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/syria-jim-fitzpatrick-resigns-labour-2237317#ixzz2dPkLPgJV
Who is in line for promotion?
"Embarrassment was heaped on humiliation as it emerged that at least four government ministers failed to vote, apparently because they failed to hear the division bell.
Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, was seen remonstrating with Commons officials. Mark Simmonds, a Foreign Office Minister, was also named by government sources as having missed the vote."
Per R5L: Ken Clarke didn't vote - he put out a statement saying he couldn't vote due to family commitments (or something similar) but said very firmly that he supported the Government motion.
"The Treasury minister David Gauke also failed to vote."
How on earth can these people be so hopeless?
Everyone knew the vote was at 10pm.
Price now 5/1
Farron, the elected party president, was amongst 14 LD abstentions. 9 others LD MPs voted against.
Other people may have a better view on it though.
"Who is in line for promotion?"
Ian Murray?
The fact that Israel were able to use phosphorus bombs in Gaza without sanction shows it to be no more than bullying by the powerful on the weak.
This not only causes resentment but teaches that physical power is everything and encourages powerless nations to go on a weapons chase
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza
"Farron, the elected party president, was amongst 14 LD abstentions. 9 others LD MPs voted against."
So over half the party voted in favour? Surely political suicide if they weren't already dead.
The Lib Dem Party conference should be a hoot!
Milliband was I think uncertain but events have conspired to make him look measured rather than "cavalier". The "weak" argument (which he is I still think) is harder to make stick. In the wider context of the polls we shall see how it plays, but with Ed having had a crap Summer, the economy showing some signs of life (even if still on debt steroids), Cameron really has taken aim and blown his big toe off here for the moment at precisely the time he was somewhat on the front foot.
Given the voting system may mean Ed only needs 35% too, I am somewhat reminded of Napoleon's supposed maxim for selecting generals: Never mind if he's any good, is he lucky?
Just another note; The Syrian people may just look on in wonder at a leader who says "ok we're going to do X", only for the democratically elected people's representatives to have a real open discussion and the say "no, not a good idea, cease and desist", - and he does. Sometimes we might forget we are lucky to live in such a place.