Indeed, Dr. Prasannan. We've got a tyrant against fundamentalist heart-eating priest-beheaders.
I feel tremendous sympathy for the people of Syria, and the secular opposition that was forced into war and then (seemingly) overtaken by terrorist psychos.
Mr. Eagles, didn't Mao kill more?
Mao did kill more, but a majority of those were through bad agricultural policies rather than plans to murder your opponents.
You could argue that during ze war, we were also allies with Mao - when he wasn't fighting Chiang Kai-shek.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Rubbish. You (and tim) are trying to waltz on the head of a pin.
The issue at stake was whether Britain should agree that the use of chemical weapons should have consequences.
EdM apparently thinks so but manufactured an outcome whereby Britain has now said it doesn't care about international law violations.
Not to see this, and given your undoubted insight into UK politics, proves that you are, it turns out, simply a frog in a well. It is realpolitik and goes further than the number of UKIP MPs we will have in June 2015.
As a bonus, EdM has diminished Britain's standing in the world, something that will allow Leftists to believe that they are making a stand against the military-industrial complex.
Is that what you want?
Mike you run a UK-based politics blog brilliantly and could call a bye-election in Totnes from a thousand paces with your eyes closed.
But you are over your head in terms of geo-political nuances of a multi-national effort to address a rogue head of state.
Whether I think Cameron has in this instance done well or badly (I give him 5.2/10) is beside the point, as with the Scottish referendum, he sees the broader implications for the UK, as he must because that is his job.
Firstly, where does the Gove for Leader meme come from? I'm pretty sure I've read him as saying on a few occasions that he has absolutely no interest in the leadership, basically because he understands that he doesn't have the minerals for it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I'd say winning back ones authority is easier than winning back ones virginity. I think!?
Born again virgins: The newest plastic surgery craze in China
We all know that many things are on the rise in China; the economy, the middle class population, the number of foreign TV series, and if the last few days are anything to go by, the temperature! Now add to the list... wait for it, ‘Hymenorrhaphy’. The surgical reconstruction of the hymen.
Can you ooze incompetence? Isn't it almost an oxymoron?
I like it though!
Oozes is a very Tory verb. And incompetence is a very Tory trait.
No it isn't. These particular ones just happen to be incompetent in specific ways.
It is about 25 years since the UK had a competent Tory government. The longer you go without one of those, the more the incompetence label will stick.
Maybe so, but I refuse to play the game where we pretend the politicians from one party are objectively mroe likely to be incompetent or nasty than those of another. I know it's a fun game to play, along with pretending our political opponents are out to get the poor/gut the rich or whatever for selfish reasons, but it's just wearing after a while.
The polling on Syria was far more opposed than just about any other proposed military action over the past 50 years. I can find nothing comparative where the figures were two to one against.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Rubbish. You (and tim) are trying to waltz on the head of a pin.
The issue at stake was whether Britain should agree that the use of chemical weapons should have consequences.
EdM apparently thinks so but manufactured an outcome whereby Britain has now said it doesn't care about international law violations.
Not to see this, and given your undoubted insight into UK politics, proves that you are, it turns out, simply a frog in a well. It is realpolitik and goes further than the number of UKIP MPs we will have in June 2015.
As a bonus, EdM has diminished Britain's standing in the world, something that will allow Leftists to believe that they are making a stand against the military-industrial complex.
Is that what you want?
Polling being clear is not necessarily an indication of what the vote in the Commons would be like. If politicians only did what the polls said we'd like, nothing would ever get done.
Of course, there were other signs that a vote would at best always be very tight, but to suggest that because the polls indicated people were against it the whole venture would naturally be a disaster seems silly.
Mr. Richard, must say that the US agreeing with Argentina over the UN getting involved over the Falklands does not sit well with the notion of loyal allies.
Given that what happened is what the overwhelming majority wanted - wars getting properly voted on beforehand - i think Cameron resigning over this would be a terrible idea.
Hague on the other hand.
Public opinion is very fickle and may be very different in a few weeks time depending on what may happen . Chamberlain was hailed as a hero when he returned from Munich waving a piece of paper . Making ( especially foreign ) policy based on what the majority of the public want can be fraught with danger .
I'm not talking about public opinion vis a vis going to war in this case i'm talking about public opinion wanting a proper vote before going to any war.
R.I.P. The Special Relationship. Tomorrow's Sun front page #syria pic.twitter.com/E0dRnovWrh
Want to know what the 'special relationship' is:
British soldiers fight in American wars American soldiers don't fight in British wars
I believe there's a similar arrangement now with extradition treaties.
Yeah, it's not one way, but when there's a power imbalance in the relationship, of course it's not, it's why they can flout it more often without consequences. No doubt there's nations out there competing to be the most special with China right now. It can still hurt when our bigger sibling no longer needs us even so, and an inconvenience if not as upsetting for them when we cause them trouble.
The blame is entirely Cameron's who completely misread public opinion and the views of his own party.
So are you saying that Cameron should not have his own views and should go along only with public opinion no matter how ill informed it is. What sort of leader is that?
Cameron could have just ignored parliament, but being the honorable man he is he kept his word and referred this matter to parliament. 30 of his own party voted against him but unfortunately cameron had relied upon the word of miliband just as blair relied on the word of IDS when 130+ labour mps voted against him. IDS is a honorable man, we all know what miliband is. Maybe is was bad politics by cameron but should politics come into matters such as this?
Your hatred of cameron sometimes clouds your statements on here. In my view the best PMs are principled, honest, honorable, and pragmatic and Cameron demonstrated all those yesterday. Miliband demonstrated completely the opposite.
As that chap on Channel 4 news said Labour were gung-ho in supporting the republican Bush when he wanted regime change in Iraq, yet they have voted against the government on a matter such as this, the first time an opposition party has for over 200 years, a government who wished to support the international community and the democratic president Obama in taking very limited action against a government that had used chemical weapons against its own people! And the labour MPs cheered miliband for this.
In my view its far far too early to be in any way certain how this is going to turn out for either DC or Ed.M. Us public can be very fickle indeed and unlike earlier in the week the tweets on the BBC and Sky today were splitting about 50/50 . Its almost as though there may be a sense of shame at what we did in the HOC last night. Some on here will disagree but looking at what Kerry said this eveninbg it sems peoploe who still say Assad didn't commit this crime are almost being wilfully blind. I though Ed.M couldn;t have spoken more stupidly today when he said "we must not forget the people of Syria and what happened." I am far from sure that such a comment will go down too well with people who will detect a whiff of hypocrisy in it. DC has been seriously damaged for the moment but to say that this will hit his poll ratings is hugely uncertain. At least people know where he stands and will accept his genuine desire to take action even if they disagree with it. i am still not sure how i would have voted last night myself as it seems tome that there are principled reasons for either course of action. What I can;t stomach is Ed.M trying to ride two horses at the same time. We all know that he shifted his position because his shadow cabinet forced him so to do and he in my book looks incredibly weak. DC at least had the courage of his convictions.
Indeed, Dr. Prasannan. We've got a tyrant against fundamentalist heart-eating priest-beheaders.
I feel tremendous sympathy for the people of Syria, and the secular opposition that was forced into war and then (seemingly) overtaken by terrorist psychos.
Mr. Eagles, didn't Mao kill more?
http://25mostevil.wordpress.com/ interesting list of ne'er do wells here. Stalin makes number 2 - but Mao's actions were responsible for more deaths (But bear in mind the Chinese population is larger) - perhaps a draw overall ?
I think it boils down to the fact that by invading, Iraq, with good intentions, we made life worse for the local population. So, people don't want to repeat the process in Syria. There are a myriad of factions who hate each other, and would only unite to hate us, if we were to intervene.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
By causing more civilian losses - possibly - than the original WMD?
The last guy we didn't punish for using chemical weapons became even more emboldened a few years later.
You mean Winston Churchill?
Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
I'm not suggesting otherwise, and that would certainly be a good indicator the vote would be difficult - I'm merely saying that making it sound as simple as a direct comparitive eg 'polls indicate people don't want it, therefore it was always going to be a disaster' is not correct.
For one, by your logic, shouldn't the vote have been far more against the government? It was almost 50-50, whereas the polls certainly weren't, they were 66-33 or thereabouts you say?
That's the point I'm making, that other factors influence how the MPs would vote, so the fact the public were and are very against the idea, does not translate to it being an automatic disaster as if that is a universal rule of politics and that by that factor alone Cameron should have known better, and how could he have been so silly as to think of doing something the public polls were against? (something govs do all the time, even if this one was more conclusive than many).
It was a disaster on this occasion, and the strength of the polling was a major contributing factor (and more relevantly, the non-partisan spread of statements well beforehand against intervention) in that Cameron should have been smarter and seen it coming, but the comparison you made is inexplicably simplistic about the matter I regrettably felt.
The polling on Syria was far more opposed than just about any other proposed military action over the past 50 years. I can find nothing comparative where the figures were two to one against.
For knowledgeable posters on classical history and Morris Dancer this is very depressing
Local residents recently destroyed part of the Cyrene necropolis, an ancient Greek city in north-eastern Libya, to make way for houses and shops. Our Observer, an archaeology professor, laments the authorities’ unwillingness to act to prevent the destruction of this invaluable archaeological heritage.
I think it boils down to the fact that by invading, Iraq, with good intentions, we made life worse for the local population. So, people don't want to repeat the process in Syria. There are a myriad of factions who hate each other, and would only unite to hate us, if we were to intervene.
Mike you run a UK-based politics blog brilliantly and could call a bye-election in Totnes from a thousand paces with your eyes closed.
But you are over your head in terms of geo-political nuances of a multi-national effort to address a rogue head of state.
Whether I think Cameron has in this instance done well or badly (I give him 5.2/10) is beside the point, as with the Scottish referendum, he sees the broader implications for the UK, as he must because that is his job.
You don't, because it is not.
You are at the bottom of the well, croaking.
------ Mike Smithson once declared on this, his own Board that Tony Blair should be hauled before the International Criminal Court.
Not for Iraq, oh no, but for the bombing of Yugoslavia while Milosevic was committing genocide in Kosovo.
He's a tremendously nice guy and runs a brilliant blog, but he's as loopy as dear old Tap where foreign policy is concerned.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
By causing more civilian losses - possibly - than the original WMD?
The last guy we didn't punish for using chemical weapons became even more emboldened a few years later.
You mean Winston Churchill?
Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
Given that what happened is what the overwhelming majority wanted - wars getting properly voted on beforehand - i think Cameron resigning over this would be a terrible idea.
Hague on the other hand.
Public opinion is very fickle and may be very different in a few weeks time depending on what may happen . Chamberlain was hailed as a hero when he returned from Munich waving a piece of paper . Making ( especially foreign ) policy based on what the majority of the public want can be fraught with danger .
He can have all the views in the world but if he's so incompetent he can't even get the Cabinet through the lobbies then what's the point?
but it's weak, tim.
You are right he mishandled it. Badly. What the fuck was Justine Greening doing in a "soundproofed room"? Why did he recall parliament early? Why didn't he bring in EdM earlier (although that might not have helped, it transpires)?
But the nuts and bolts of the issue were to vote to support one (least bad) way of restraining a tyrant who had gassed his own people.
Dave got the big picture and EdM for reasons he will have to live with, either didn't or chose not to.
I think it boils down to the fact that by invading, Iraq, with good intentions, we made life worse for the local population. So, people don't want to repeat the process in Syria. There are a myriad of factions who hate each other, and would only unite to hate us, if we were to intervene.
Ultimately that is indeed the crux of the matter. Syria's multi-faceted war is even more complex and if action was going to happen it should have been long ago.
That said, the leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are clearly still smarting from Iraq, and made a lot more effort to set limits on action, so I do have some sympathy with the interventionists complaints that some of the non-interventionists (of which I am one) have not been judging this situation and the proposals on its own merits and failings.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Well I might ask then how do we 'punish' the USA for its use of chemicals in Vietnam ?
But on the more current situation can you explain how you would 'punish' those who have used chemicals in Syria (which seems to have been both sides) and what you think the consequences of these actions would be ?
And are you equally as keen to 'punish' people who for example behead priests in Syria ? Or is that not a fashionable enough cause this season ?
Firstly, where does the Gove for Leader meme come from? I'm pretty sure I've read him as saying on a few occasions that he has absolutely no interest in the leadership, basically because he understands that he doesn't have the minerals for it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I'd say winning back ones authority is easier than winning back ones virginity. I think!?
Born again virgins: The newest plastic surgery craze in China
We all know that many things are on the rise in China; the economy, the middle class population, the number of foreign TV series, and if the last few days are anything to go by, the temperature! Now add to the list... wait for it, ‘Hymenorrhaphy’. The surgical reconstruction of the hymen.
Nah, I don't see the Gove-leadership thing. Brogan is just skating on the odd-ball board because he's one himself. Gove is too marmite; he knows it and the Tories know it. He wouldn't put himself up for the leadership.
I actually like Gove. I like the fact - controversial though he is - that he gets involved in arguments over the use of the English language. He's big into his rigour and I like that. He may lose some of the arguments, but at least he gives a sh*t, and looks like a man who genuinely wants every kid to improve.
Looking at the results the short term effects of the vote will be outweighed by the long term effects. I don't really accept that Cameron will be able to use any further atrocities in syria against Ed, although others will. Ed is establishing for himself a history of treachery; union leaders will do well to remember to get anything he promises to them in writing...
What is not generally understood is that in terms of defence co-operation there is no stronger relationship than between the US and UK (US/Canada comes pretty close). We have weapons systems and shared capabilities in intelligence and research that the US do not trust to anyone else - especially the french :-).
While Ed is playing his student politics (very effectively I may say), I am convinced he will start finding things moving against him. The NSA is the least of his worries. I hope that he and those around him have no skeletons in their closets...
Kellner was on Sky News today talking about polling on military action.
Using Iraq as an example, he claimed it always followed a pattern.
Before decision made 33% in favour When decision made 50% in favour When Baghdad fell 66% in favour One year later 50% in favour Thereafter (and Kellner claimed the tail depended on the outcome) 33% in favour
I have recalled the exact figures without any attempt to be accurate. The point is the pattern.
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Telegraph front page - "Ministers face sack over Syria shambles" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/q7vFnbBeKf
This is really damaging stuff, the incompetent Cameron and the Whips Office didn't have a clue what the numbers were so it appears lots of people didn't vote, including ten ministers
Good, I hope they are sacked unless they can prove it was a result of someone elses' incompetence. Cameron may have made the biggest miscalculation in how close a vote it turned out to be, and his whips not doing a good job, but every senior figure should have been paying greater attention given they knew it would be close, so not voting is as good as voting against.
Assuming this all goes ahead and Obama doesn't throw a wobbler, strikes can be launched within 5-6 hours. Given the Americans like to attack at night because most countries are poor at night fighting of any kind, he's still got time tonight. The Turkish PM suggested something by next Friday (he also said Obama's limited strikes not enough) which seems nuts from a practical point of view. How much time do you want to wait?
As I posted last night the Assad side has had time to prep, given that an initial expectation was strikes Wed-Thursday. Maybe deliberate, ensures action is limited & maintains the balance since, a) so much asset is moved out (some is driving around to present a moving target) b) limits loss of life. Given Obama's ponderous approach and the possibility of very light strikes, Assad might be more concerned that insurgents will exploit the distraction more than any material US damage. How will it look if the US doesn't inflict much damage, probably kills a few civilians & Assad stands defiant? Champion.
Assad could bite the arm of the President's willingness to deal. US fires 20 missiles, Assad sits on naughty chair over chemical weapons use & promises to be a good boy. The US tried in recent days with Iran & Russia to see if a grand deal could be struck. No idea if that is still on the table. Odd really, generally dictatorial regimes often need to get or be threatened with a kicking before getting the message but I guess theres no shortage of Western politicians who think they can do something different. Interesting behind the scenes.
Here is the discordant note that makes me wonder if Obama is deliberately misinforming about the scale of a strike (probably not but bear with me). The US has deployed most of its its in-theatre airpower in the Gulf. Best of kit. The initial feeling is its there for defensive duties against retaliation or in case things do get out of hand. But why heavy bombers which could instead coast in from the US? Militarily, its a good place to locate. Assad had a large hole in his air defense network on those approaches and Russian watch coverage is a bit more limited . Not sure Assad ever got that hole properly fixed.
The elephant in the room: The US has been more heavily involved in assisting insurgents in the South coming in via Jordan in the recent past. Perhaps this will be the real punishment to Assad or perhaps the US will hokey cokey out & in of that commitment again.
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Telegraph front page - "Ministers face sack over Syria shambles" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/q7vFnbBeKf
This is really damaging stuff, the incompetent Cameron and the Whips Office didn't have a clue what the numbers were so it appears lots of people didn't vote, including ten ministers
They thought they knew the Labour numbers but were hijacked by EdM and his "Magnificen Seven".
Looking at the results the short term effects of the vote will be outweighed by the long term effects. I don't really accept that Cameron will be able to use any further atrocities in syria against Ed, although others will. Ed is establishing for himself a history of treachery; union leaders will do well to remember to get anything he promises to them in writing...
What is not generally understood is that in terms of defence co-operation there is no stronger relationship than between the US and UK (US/Canada comes pretty close). We have weapons systems and shared capabilities in intelligence and research that the US do not trust to anyone else - especially the french :-).
While Ed is playing his student politics (very effectively I may say), I am convinced he will start finding things moving against him. The NSA is the least of his worries. I hope that he and those around him have no skeletons in their closets...
On Ed - and the friends of America british rightwing press don't forget.
In my view its far far too early to be in any way certain how this is going to turn out for either DC or Ed.M. Us public can be very fickle indeed and unlike earlier in the week the tweets on the BBC and Sky today were splitting about 50/50 . Its almost as though there may be a sense of shame at what we did in the HOC last night. Some on here will disagree but looking at what Kerry said this eveninbg it sems peoploe who still say Assad didn't commit this crime are almost being wilfully blind. I though Ed.M couldn;t have spoken more stupidly today when he said "we must not forget the people of Syria and what happened." I am far from sure that such a comment will go down too well with people who will detect a whiff of hypocrisy in it. DC has been seriously damaged for the moment but to say that this will hit his poll ratings is hugely uncertain. At least people know where he stands and will accept his genuine desire to take action even if they disagree with it. i am still not sure how i would have voted last night myself as it seems tome that there are principled reasons for either course of action. What I can;t stomach is Ed.M trying to ride two horses at the same time. We all know that he shifted his position because his shadow cabinet forced him so to do and he in my book looks incredibly weak. DC at least had the courage of his convictions.
Good post. I agree with that.
And Cameron tends to be good in a crisis; he's the type of politician who will strive hard to work through this.
Also, although yesterday was a good day for parliament, it wasn't a good day for PM's trying to be democratic and anti-sofa government. Cameron probably deeply regrets letting the MPs have an early say now. It was a mistake, but - I think - an honourable mistake.
Mike you run a UK-based politics blog brilliantly and could call a bye-election in Totnes from a thousand paces with your eyes closed.
But you are over your head in terms of geo-political nuances of a multi-national effort to address a rogue head of state.
Whether I think Cameron has in this instance done well or badly (I give him 5.2/10) is beside the point, as with the Scottish referendum, he sees the broader implications for the UK, as he must because that is his job.
You don't, because it is not.
You are at the bottom of the well, croaking.
------ Mike Smithson once declared on this, his own Board that Tony Blair should be hauled before the International Criminal Court.
Not for Iraq, oh no, but for the bombing of Yugoslavia while Milosevic was committing genocide in Kosovo.
He's a tremendously nice guy and runs a brilliant blog, but he's as loopy as dear old Tap where foreign policy is concerned.
Antifrank is convinced we helped install a gangster regime in Kosovo. IMO we did the right thing, but he's closer to the ground.
Kellner was on Sky News today talking about polling on military action.
Using Iraq as an example, he claimed it always followed a pattern.
Before decision made 33% in favour When decision made 50% in favour When Baghdad fell 66% in favour One year later 50% in favour Thereafter (and Kellner claimed the tail depended on the outcome) 33% in favour
I have recalled the exact figures without any attempt to be accurate. The point is the pattern.
Another reason I find the 'polling was bad' argument unhelpful.
The open dissent from figures in all parties was a far bigger warning sign - if backbenchers on all sides were willing to break rank and be all non-partisan, odds were a lot more were planning to do the same.
In my view its far far too early to be in any way certain how this is going to turn out for either DC or Ed.M. Us public can be very fickle indeed and unlike earlier in the week the tweets on the BBC and Sky today were splitting about 50/50 . Its almost as though there may be a sense of shame at what we did in the HOC last night. Some on here will disagree but looking at what Kerry said this eveninbg it sems peoploe who still say Assad didn't commit this crime are almost being wilfully blind. I though Ed.M couldn;t have spoken more stupidly today when he said "we must not forget the people of Syria and what happened." I am far from sure that such a comment will go down too well with people who will detect a whiff of hypocrisy in it. DC has been seriously damaged for the moment but to say that this will hit his poll ratings is hugely uncertain. At least people know where he stands and will accept his genuine desire to take action even if they disagree with it. i am still not sure how i would have voted last night myself as it seems tome that there are principled reasons for either course of action. What I can;t stomach is Ed.M trying to ride two horses at the same time. We all know that he shifted his position because his shadow cabinet forced him so to do and he in my book looks incredibly weak. DC at least had the courage of his convictions.
"but looking at what Kerry said this eveninbg it sems peoploe who still say Assad didn't commit this crime are almost being wilfully blind."
Kerry stood up and said "we know" a lot. That's not evidence. They did exactly the same before Iraq. They don't know anything. Even the evidence they present e.g. the panicked phone-calls among the regime after the news broke on twitter is actually evidence that it - whatever it was - *wasn't* sanctioned from the top.
Also where does this stuff about rockets come from? I thought the eye-witness reports talked about mortars?
I think it boils down to the fact that by invading, Iraq, with good intentions, we made life worse for the local population. So, people don't want to repeat the process in Syria. There are a myriad of factions who hate each other, and would only unite to hate us, if we were to intervene.
Ambrose E-P gave a nice Syria anecdote today that adds some context:
"...my father – an Arab-speaker, then an Eighth Army Captain E. E. Evans-Pritchard – wrote the original intelligence report on the Alawite region of Syria in 1942 while planning for a post-War settlement. I am told that this included a classified profile of the Assad family, already seen as future leaders.
There were very good reasons why the French and the British chose to rebuild Syria the way they did, searching for a formula that could hold together a mosaic of Orthodox Christians, Assyrian Chaldean Christians, Melkite Catholics, Alawites, Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, and Druze. Mess with that at your peril."
Blair and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's shocking lack of post war planning is to blame for that, and Al Qaeda
At least they knew what they were trying to do - namely get rid of Saddam.
And they managed it without too much difficulty.
What came after did show their lack of planning and understanding.
But the warmongers now are far WORSE - they want to get involved in a war without even knowing what they're trying to do and how they're going to do it. Let alone what the consequences will be and what they'll have to do then.
'Cos we know there would only be one winner there.
Purveyors of sick bags?
Eck is of the generation that covers up; I'd see him in a Mick McManus style leotard. Dave (as we have seen) is a little more willing to flash the flesh.
I'm up for the French resuming control -- solves that problem nicely.
I personally think Syria ought to be eligible for Commonwealth membership due to the UK briefly being in charge during both WW1 and WW2. But that's just me
So what do we think the polling implications of the last few days will be?
First up will be Sunday's YouGov - how will Dave and Miliband's relative ratings have shifted, if at all.
VI tends to be a little lagged...so how about mid next week, and then say in a fortnight's time?
Then we'll have MORI's Leader Ratings. tim predicts Cameron's to fall but he's frit on Ed's.
I'll start. My guess is a modest increase in Labour's lead short term (7-8%) but falling back to the 5-6% by mid September. But I reckon Dave's ratings will hold pretty steady but Miliband's will fall slightly.
Indeed - one of the problems Obama has trying to drum up support is that he doesn't want to let Congress get involved as there is a good chance he would lose a vote.
Congressmen and Senators are at home holding town hall meetings at present. I went to one the other day. Even in Georgia, the most Republican state in the union and without a single statewide elected Democratic office holder, the crowd let him know categorically that this is not our fight, leave them alone, the opposition are as bad as the incumbents, and so on. The whole Iraq WMD fiasco was a favorite reason.
Obama has a big mountain to climb on this. He may decide not to try and just go ahead anyway. If he calls it a 'police action' or some such he might get away with it, otherwise he's into the War Powers Act and the constitution, which gets really murky.
I asked him (the congressman) afterwards how he felt it had gone, and he told me that both democrats and republicans are hearing the same thing - Stay Out. That poll seems to have it right.
The polling on Syria was far more opposed than just about any other proposed military action over the past 50 years. I can find nothing comparative where the figures were two to one against.
The Angus Reid poll found 97% (!!) of over 55s opposed.
At least five Government ministers face the sack in the wake of David Cameron’s humiliating failure to secure parliamentary backing for military strikes against the Syrian regime.
Alan Duncan, David Gauke and Steve Webb failed to return from holiday to support the Government, angering the Prime Minister, according to sources.
Those placing all their trust in NeoCons trumpeting the infallibility of intelligence assessments with no evidence obviously have a very short memory and have learned nothing.
The weapons inspectors have a job to do and just like before some seem intent on trying to sideline them. Get the evidence and start proceedings to find those responsible so they can face war crimes charges and the ICC.
At least five Government ministers face the sack in the wake of David Cameron’s humiliating failure to secure parliamentary backing for military strikes against the Syrian regime.
Alan Duncan, David Gauke and Steve Webb failed to return from holiday to support the Government, angering the Prime Minister, according to sources.
I'm surprised no one has commented on my final sentence in the thread header
I guess because it seems so impossible politically right now.
Hence my confusion earlier - my feeling was if evidence was conclusive enough for them Labour would be behind direct action, but the tone of news skimming today was Ed M patting himself and getting patted on the back for saying it was right to rule out military action full stop, not 'rule it out until we hear more', so the message I was hearing was they would, whatever their original motion said, not support any action at all under any circumstances (I'm either a cynicial or realistic non-interventionist in that I won't pretend that we can still be tough on Syria now the threat of action is gone), and the tone from Cameron being tough talk but accepting he could do jack shit.
So maybe I've completely misread the tone, but it feels like while it might have been possible to vote again under new circumstances, to me it now feels that both sides have decided since people and parliament are reluctant to risk making things worse in a chaotic situation, we will all have to live with the consequences of doing nothing, and hope it works out or at least doesn't get worse because of our lack of action*
*the 'why do we have to be involved' argument may get trotted out, and the answer is of course we don't, but nations always choose to involve themselves when it is in their interests and they have the capacity, and though we denigrate our own position in the world, we are still significant, so if we say morally something should be done (as our leaders do seem to be saying), it is not arrogant of us as a nation to consider if we should be among them.
Although people did get quite engaged with the issue, I'm not sure they are so engaged with the Westminster process. The response to my email on the subject is unusually large but lots of them are saying they agree with the decision but dislike the media treatment of it as basically political games. I don't think it will have much effect on the polls, except possibly on the Lib/Lab spectrum.
Those placing all their trust in NeoCons trumpeting the infallibility of intelligence assessments with no evidence obviously have a very short memory and have learned nothing.
The weapons inspectors have a job to do and just like before some seem intent on trying to sideline them. Get the evidence and start proceedings to find those responsible so they can face war crimes charges and the ICC.
I thought the UN missionw as deliberately not to find those responsible? Is another mission planned to do that later, or have I got that wrong?
Again, not supporting intervention, but to me it feels like we either take on some responsibility and take action (normal international stuff, butting in to other nations, not unusual) or we accept that we are doing nothing that will stop anything (given things like the ICC can just be ignored).
I recall when the Libya intervention occurred people on QT saying things like 'We should never be involved, but I do think Gaddafi should step down' as though the latter could happen without someone getting involved. I think Syria is like that. Either you take the risk and act with potentially disastrous and definitely bloody consequences, or don't pretend that not acting will achieve much if it hasn't already.
I blame Hague more than Cameron. My guess is that after spending time with Angelina he became star struck and saw himself as Lawrence of Arabia. Pathetic I know but why else would he have made the fundamental mistake of outrageous over selling . If anyone resigns it should be him.
I'm surprised no one has commented on my final sentence in the thread header
Nobody could be bothered because it was utter bilge relying on Assad, you try to make out, that anyone who did not want to follow your timetable to war , would have death on their hands. I assure you it will not be that easy whatever the USA does in Syria.
I'm surprised no one has commented on my final sentence in the thread header
Nobody could be bothered because it was utter bilge relying on Assad, you try to make out, that anyone who did not want to follow your timetable to war , would have death on their hands. I assure you it will not be that easy whatever the USA does in Syria.
Perhaps if you read and clicked the final sentence, that might be a start.
I'm up for the French resuming control -- solves that problem nicely.
I personally think Syria ought to be eligible for Commonwealth membership due to the UK briefly being in charge during both WW1 and WW2. But that's just me
Given UK rule is not a requirement for membership as with Mozambique and Rwanda (exceptional cases or not), it appears so long as there is will within the members to admit someone, that is all the eligibility they need, and some stuff with the Queen being the head of the Commonwealth et al.
Alan Duncan, David Gauke and Steve Webb failed to return from holiday to support the Government, angering the Prime Minister, according to sources.
Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, and Mark Simmonds, a junior Foreign Office minister, claim to have not realised that voting had begun as they were in a meeting. Commons officials said the explanation was baffling as it “would have been clear” that a vote was happening.
Kenneth Clarke also abstained after being given permission for “logistical family reasons”, but the 73-year-old minister without portfolio is widely expected to lose his job anyway in a forthcoming reshuffle.
In total, including Liberal Democrats and a Downing Street adviser, 10 members of the Government are recorded as not having voted.
I'm surprised no one has commented on my final sentence in the thread header
On reading it I was instantly reminded of two quotes, one from Harold Wilson, the other from Harold MacMillan -
A week is a long time in politics
Events, dear boy, events.
To some extent, EdM is now a hostage to fortune.
It is conceivable, if Assad gets desperate enough, that his behavior could persuade the public of the US and UK, particularly if he doesn't respond appropriately to Obama's imminent "message", that 'something must be done'. It all depends how big a body count you need to override your concerns.
So what do we think the polling implications of the last few days will be?
First up will be Sunday's YouGov - how will Dave and Miliband's relative ratings have shifted, if at all.
VI tends to be a little lagged...so how about mid next week, and then say in a fortnight's time?
Then we'll have MORI's Leader Ratings. tim predicts Cameron's to fall but he's frit on Ed's.
I'll start. My guess is a modest increase in Labour's lead short term (7-8%) but falling back to the 5-6% by mid September. But I reckon Dave's ratings will hold pretty steady but Miliband's will fall slightly.
Very little, I suspect. Foreign policy has to be a triumph or disaster to have an impact.
Support the war on terror - Support Assad - Stop Cameron
Seriously, UKIP when do you find these people.
Aren't various AQ-aligned groups fighting Assad?
War breeds strange allies.
The largest mass murderer in human history was our ally during World War II
By your logic we should therefore support Assad against Al Qaeda.
Cameron's 'logic' would have had us declare war on the Soviets after it was attacked by Germany.
Wrong, I'm in favour of punishing people who use WMD.
Yes but how ?
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
Targetting the Syrian regime and military/intelligence infrastructure, until Assad surrenders to face criminal charges
Very similar to the war in Iraq you mean but without the troops on the ground.
There are troops on the ground. They eat hearts. Hence why the moral case on this is totally bogus.
If you accept being an ally of the US even when they're wrong is a critical national interest then you can make a national interest case but the moral case is total bollox given the situation on the ground vis a vis our heart-eating allies.
"But Ed Miliband needs to pray that the Syrian government doesn’t commit any more atrocities. Because David Cameron is going to lay them all at his door from now on."
A ridiculous point since cruise missiles are hardly renowned for their healing powers or their ability to gather evidence on and capture war criminals.
Nonetheless, if that's the 'logic' from those intent on military strikes then they had also better pray that the Rebels and Al-Qaeda factions aligned to them don't also commit any more atrocities. Which is somewhat unlikely since both they and Assad have done so long before this and will continue to do so the more desperate and intractable an escalated civil war gets.
Yep, Nigel Farage managed to read the entire Syria situation and the wider security implications while sitting in the pub with a pint and a fag in his hand. He never even had to worry about leaving the pub to vote down any response to the Syrian situation by the UK Government, he just took a quick glance at the polling and he was in the driving seat of the latest bandwagon.
Cameron and "humiliation" go together naturally on another days front pages
@suttonnick: Saturday's Daily Mail front page "US snubs Britain - and gets cosy with the French" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/9QhpOEbTQo
Your party leader must take some of the blame as well.
Rubbish. You (and tim) are trying to waltz on the head of a pin.
The issue at stake was whether Britain should agree that the use of chemical weapons should have consequences.
EdM apparently thinks so but manufactured an outcome whereby Britain has now said it doesn't care about international law violations.
Not to see this, and given your undoubted insight into UK politics, proves that you are, it turns out, simply a frog in a well. It is realpolitik and goes further than the number of UKIP MPs we will have in June 2015.
As a bonus, EdM has diminished Britain's standing in the world, something that will allow Leftists to believe that they are making a stand against the military-industrial complex.
Comments
The Sun Newspaper @TheSunNewspaper 2m
R.I.P. The Special Relationship. Tomorrow's Sun front page #syria pic.twitter.com/E0dRnovWrh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sv5iEK-IEzw
But you are over your head in terms of geo-political nuances of a multi-national effort to address a rogue head of state.
Whether I think Cameron has in this instance done well or badly (I give him 5.2/10) is beside the point, as with the Scottish referendum, he sees the broader implications for the UK, as he must because that is his job.
You don't, because it is not.
You are at the bottom of the well, croaking.
British soldiers fight in American wars
American soldiers don't fight in British wars
I believe there's a similar arrangement now with extradition treaties.
2) Getting your virginity back is easy
Born again virgins: The newest plastic surgery craze in China
We all know that many things are on the rise in China; the economy, the middle class
population, the number of foreign TV series, and if the last few days are anything to go by, the temperature! Now add to the list... wait for it, ‘Hymenorrhaphy’. The surgical reconstruction of the hymen.
http://shanghaiist.com/2010/08/18/born_again_virgins.php
Mr. Eagles, indeed.
edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/us/new-york-kittens-subway/index.html
Even those hard New Yorkers are suckers for a cute pussy
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97T0UO20130830?irpc=932
Lay, lay, lay.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/373534412060643328/photo/1
Could you explain how this will work in the Syria situation.
For one, by your logic, shouldn't the vote have been far more against the government? It was almost 50-50, whereas the polls certainly weren't, they were 66-33 or thereabouts you say?
That's the point I'm making, that other factors influence how the MPs would vote, so the fact the public were and are very against the idea, does not translate to it being an automatic disaster as if that is a universal rule of politics and that by that factor alone Cameron should have known better, and how could he have been so silly as to think of doing something the public polls were against? (something govs do all the time, even if this one was more conclusive than many).
It was a disaster on this occasion, and the strength of the polling was a major contributing factor (and more relevantly, the non-partisan spread of statements well beforehand against intervention) in that Cameron should have been smarter and seen it coming, but the comparison you made is inexplicably simplistic about the matter I regrettably felt.
Local residents recently destroyed part of the Cyrene necropolis, an ancient Greek city in north-eastern Libya, to make way for houses and shops. Our Observer, an archaeology professor, laments the authorities’ unwillingness to act to prevent the destruction of this invaluable archaeological heritage.
http://observers.france24.com/content/20130823-ancient-libyan-necropolis-threatened-cyrene
Mike you run a UK-based politics blog brilliantly and could call a bye-election in Totnes from a thousand paces with your eyes closed.
But you are over your head in terms of geo-political nuances of a multi-national effort to address a rogue head of state.
Whether I think Cameron has in this instance done well or badly (I give him 5.2/10) is beside the point, as with the Scottish referendum, he sees the broader implications for the UK, as he must because that is his job.
You don't, because it is not.
You are at the bottom of the well, croaking.
------
Mike Smithson once declared on this, his own Board that Tony Blair should be hauled before the International Criminal Court.
Not for Iraq, oh no, but for the bombing of Yugoslavia while Milosevic was committing genocide in Kosovo.
He's a tremendously nice guy and runs a brilliant blog, but he's as loopy as dear old Tap where foreign policy is concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Saddam
What has come over you?
As sane a post as any made today.
'Some might say that Ed Miliband is an opportunistic little shit.'
Labour's new ethical foreign policy Assad - Putin- Ed - wee Dougie
You are right he mishandled it. Badly. What the fuck was Justine Greening doing in a "soundproofed room"? Why did he recall parliament early? Why didn't he bring in EdM earlier (although that might not have helped, it transpires)?
But the nuts and bolts of the issue were to vote to support one (least bad) way of restraining a tyrant who had gassed his own people.
Dave got the big picture and EdM for reasons he will have to live with, either didn't or chose not to.
That is the issue.
That said, the leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are clearly still smarting from Iraq, and made a lot more effort to set limits on action, so I do have some sympathy with the interventionists complaints that some of the non-interventionists (of which I am one) have not been judging this situation and the proposals on its own merits and failings.
But on the more current situation can you explain how you would 'punish' those who have used chemicals in Syria (which seems to have been both sides) and what you think the consequences of these actions would be ?
And are you equally as keen to 'punish' people who for example behead priests in Syria ? Or is that not a fashionable enough cause this season ?
I actually like Gove. I like the fact - controversial though he is - that he gets involved in arguments over the use of the English language. He's big into his rigour and I like that. He may lose some of the arguments, but at least he gives a sh*t, and looks like a man who genuinely wants every kid to improve.
Anyway, GET ME ON A TAXI TO CHINA!!
What is not generally understood is that in terms of defence co-operation there is no stronger relationship than between the US and UK (US/Canada comes pretty close). We have weapons systems and shared capabilities in intelligence and research that the US do not trust to anyone else - especially the french :-).
While Ed is playing his student politics (very effectively I may say), I am convinced he will start finding things moving against him. The NSA is the least of his worries. I hope that he and those around him have no skeletons in their closets...
Saturday's Daily Telegraph: "Ministers face sack over Syria shambles"
pic.twitter.com/vZaquwZacF #TomorrowsPapersToday #BBCpapers
War polling
Mike
Kellner was on Sky News today talking about polling on military action.
Using Iraq as an example, he claimed it always followed a pattern.
Before decision made 33% in favour
When decision made 50% in favour
When Baghdad fell 66% in favour
One year later 50% in favour
Thereafter (and Kellner claimed the tail depended on the outcome) 33% in favour
I have recalled the exact figures without any attempt to be accurate. The point is the pattern.
The same AQ you wish to support in Syria?? LOL!
Assuming this all goes ahead and Obama doesn't throw a wobbler, strikes can be launched within 5-6 hours. Given the Americans like to attack at night because most countries are poor at night fighting of any kind, he's still got time tonight. The Turkish PM suggested something by next Friday (he also said Obama's limited strikes not enough) which seems nuts from a practical point of view. How much time do you want to wait?
As I posted last night the Assad side has had time to prep, given that an initial expectation was strikes Wed-Thursday. Maybe deliberate, ensures action is limited & maintains the balance since, a) so much asset is moved out (some is driving around to present a moving target) b) limits loss of life. Given Obama's ponderous approach and the possibility of very light strikes, Assad might be more concerned that insurgents will exploit the distraction more than any material US damage. How will it look if the US doesn't inflict much damage, probably kills a few civilians & Assad stands defiant? Champion.
Assad could bite the arm of the President's willingness to deal. US fires 20 missiles, Assad sits on naughty chair over chemical weapons use & promises to be a good boy. The US tried in recent days with Iran & Russia to see if a grand deal could be struck. No idea if that is still on the table. Odd really, generally dictatorial regimes often need to get or be threatened with a kicking before getting the message but I guess theres no shortage of Western politicians who think they can do something different. Interesting behind the scenes.
Here is the discordant note that makes me wonder if Obama is deliberately misinforming about the scale of a strike (probably not but bear with me). The US has deployed most of its its in-theatre airpower in the Gulf. Best of kit. The initial feeling is its there for defensive duties against retaliation or in case things do get out of hand. But why heavy bombers which could instead coast in from the US? Militarily, its a good place to locate. Assad had a large hole in his air defense network on those approaches and Russian watch coverage is a bit more limited . Not sure Assad ever got that hole properly fixed.
The elephant in the room: The US has been more heavily involved in assisting insurgents in the South coming in via Jordan in the recent past. Perhaps this will be the real punishment to Assad or perhaps the US will hokey cokey out & in of that commitment again.
No!
And Cameron tends to be good in a crisis; he's the type of politician who will strive hard to work through this.
Also, although yesterday was a good day for parliament, it wasn't a good day for PM's trying to be democratic and anti-sofa government. Cameron probably deeply regrets letting the MPs have an early say now. It was a mistake, but - I think - an honourable mistake.
But you are over your head in terms of geo-political nuances of a multi-national effort to address a rogue head of state.
Whether I think Cameron has in this instance done well or badly (I give him 5.2/10) is beside the point, as with the Scottish referendum, he sees the broader implications for the UK, as he must because that is his job.
You don't, because it is not.
You are at the bottom of the well, croaking.
------
Mike Smithson once declared on this, his own Board that Tony Blair should be hauled before the International Criminal Court.
Not for Iraq, oh no, but for the bombing of Yugoslavia while Milosevic was committing genocide in Kosovo.
He's a tremendously nice guy and runs a brilliant blog, but he's as loopy as dear old Tap where foreign policy is concerned.
Antifrank is convinced we helped install a gangster regime in Kosovo. IMO we did the right thing, but he's closer to the ground.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 1m
My 20000 person immigration survey published on Monday. Please register at http://lordashcroftpolls.com to receive a copy and a RT apprc
The open dissent from figures in all parties was a far bigger warning sign - if backbenchers on all sides were willing to break rank and be all non-partisan, odds were a lot more were planning to do the same.
Kerry stood up and said "we know" a lot. That's not evidence. They did exactly the same before Iraq. They don't know anything. Even the evidence they present e.g. the panicked phone-calls among the regime after the news broke on twitter is actually evidence that it - whatever it was - *wasn't* sanctioned from the top.
Also where does this stuff about rockets come from? I thought the eye-witness reports talked about mortars?
"...my father – an Arab-speaker, then an Eighth Army Captain E. E. Evans-Pritchard – wrote the original intelligence report on the Alawite region of Syria in 1942 while planning for a post-War settlement. I am told that this included a classified profile of the Assad family, already seen as future leaders.
There were very good reasons why the French and the British chose to rebuild Syria the way they did, searching for a formula that could hold together a mosaic of Orthodox Christians, Assyrian Chaldean Christians, Melkite Catholics, Alawites, Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, and Druze. Mess with that at your peril."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100025430/the-triumph-of-parliament/
And they managed it without too much difficulty.
What came after did show their lack of planning and understanding.
But the warmongers now are far WORSE - they want to get involved in a war without even knowing what they're trying to do and how they're going to do it. Let alone what the consequences will be and what they'll have to do then.
Wouldn't have happened if Syria-Lebanon had become a British Mandate
First up will be Sunday's YouGov - how will Dave and Miliband's relative ratings have shifted, if at all.
VI tends to be a little lagged...so how about mid next week, and then say in a fortnight's time?
Then we'll have MORI's Leader Ratings. tim predicts Cameron's to fall but he's frit on Ed's.
I'll start. My guess is a modest increase in Labour's lead short term (7-8%) but falling back to the 5-6% by mid September. But I reckon Dave's ratings will hold pretty steady but Miliband's will fall slightly.
Congressmen and Senators are at home holding town hall meetings at present. I went to one the other day. Even in Georgia, the most Republican state in the union and without a single statewide elected Democratic office holder, the crowd let him know categorically that this is not our fight, leave them alone, the opposition are as bad as the incumbents, and so on. The whole Iraq WMD fiasco was a favorite reason.
Obama has a big mountain to climb on this. He may decide not to try and just go ahead anyway. If he calls it a 'police action' or some such he might get away with it, otherwise he's into the War Powers Act and the constitution, which gets really murky.
I asked him (the congressman) afterwards how he felt it had gone, and he told me that both democrats and republicans are hearing the same thing - Stay Out. That poll seems to have it right.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425446/Government-lose-vote-on-war-in-Syria-as-only-EIGHT-per-cent-of-Brits-want-urgent-strikes
At least five Government ministers face the sack in the wake of David Cameron’s humiliating failure to secure parliamentary backing for military strikes against the Syrian regime.
Alan Duncan, David Gauke and Steve Webb failed to return from holiday to support the Government, angering the Prime Minister, according to sources.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10277598/Ministers-face-sack-over-Syria-shambles.html
The weapons inspectors have a job to do and just like before some seem intent on trying to sideline them. Get the evidence and start proceedings to find those responsible so they can face war crimes charges and the ICC.
Hence my confusion earlier - my feeling was if evidence was conclusive enough for them Labour would be behind direct action, but the tone of news skimming today was Ed M patting himself and getting patted on the back for saying it was right to rule out military action full stop, not 'rule it out until we hear more', so the message I was hearing was they would, whatever their original motion said, not support any action at all under any circumstances (I'm either a cynicial or realistic non-interventionist in that I won't pretend that we can still be tough on Syria now the threat of action is gone), and the tone from Cameron being tough talk but accepting he could do jack shit.
So maybe I've completely misread the tone, but it feels like while it might have been possible to vote again under new circumstances, to me it now feels that both sides have decided since people and parliament are reluctant to risk making things worse in a chaotic situation, we will all have to live with the consequences of doing nothing, and hope it works out or at least doesn't get worse because of our lack of action*
*the 'why do we have to be involved' argument may get trotted out, and the answer is of course we don't, but nations always choose to involve themselves when it is in their interests and they have the capacity, and though we denigrate our own position in the world, we are still significant, so if we say morally something should be done (as our leaders do seem to be saying), it is not arrogant of us as a nation to consider if we should be among them.
Alan Duncan and two other blokes.
Hardly a bonfire even if it did happen, which I don't think it will.
http://www.euractiv.com/elections/danes-move-closer-eu-opt-outs-re-news-529956?utm_source=EurActiv Newsletter&utm_campaign=3d26b91102-newsletter_weekly_update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-3d26b91102-245514803
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/30/syria-david-cameron-facebook-spoof_n_3842869.html
Jane Merrick @janemerrick23
Syrian woman iviewed by @bowenbbc echoes what @PCollinsTimes wrote today: "Give me one Martin Luther King so I can walk behind him."
How will this play with Ed's electoral coalition of 2010 Lab-Lib, and tactical anti-Tories?
I can't see it being negative...
Saturday's Sun p2 - "Yank you & Goodnight" + Ed Miliband as a surrender-monkey #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/Vt7rCpeY3D
Miliband of Effingsea, has a better ring to it.
Again, not supporting intervention, but to me it feels like we either take on some responsibility and take action (normal international stuff, butting in to other nations, not unusual) or we accept that we are doing nothing that will stop anything (given things like the ICC can just be ignored).
I recall when the Libya intervention occurred people on QT saying things like 'We should never be involved, but I do think Gaddafi should step down' as though the latter could happen without someone getting involved. I think Syria is like that. Either you take the risk and act with potentially disastrous and definitely bloody consequences, or don't pretend that not acting will achieve much if it hasn't already.
I assure you it will not be that easy whatever the USA does in Syria.
Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, and Mark Simmonds, a junior Foreign Office minister, claim to have not realised that voting had begun as they were in a meeting. Commons officials said the explanation was baffling as it “would have been clear” that a vote was happening.
Kenneth Clarke also abstained after being given permission for “logistical family reasons”, but the 73-year-old minister without portfolio is widely expected to lose his job anyway in a forthcoming reshuffle.
In total, including Liberal Democrats and a Downing Street adviser, 10 members of the Government are recorded as not having voted.
Mr Cameron is expected to announce a series of changes as soon as next week, with the position of Sir George Young, the Chief Whip, also under scrutiny. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10277598/Ministers-face-sack-over-Syria-shambles.html
A week is a long time in politics
Events, dear boy, events.
To some extent, EdM is now a hostage to fortune.
It is conceivable, if Assad gets desperate enough, that his behavior could persuade the public of the US and UK, particularly if he doesn't respond appropriately to Obama's imminent "message", that 'something must be done'. It all depends how big a body count you need to override your concerns.
If you accept being an ally of the US even when they're wrong is a critical national interest then you can make a national interest case but the moral case is total bollox given the situation on the ground vis a vis our heart-eating allies.
A ridiculous point since cruise missiles are hardly renowned for their healing powers or their ability to gather evidence on and capture war criminals.
Nonetheless, if that's the 'logic' from those intent on military strikes then they had also better pray that the Rebels and Al-Qaeda factions aligned to them don't also commit any more atrocities. Which is somewhat unlikely since both they and Assad have done so long before this and will continue to do so the more desperate and intractable an escalated civil war gets.
I think the aftermath of the 2014 EU and local elections will be the most likely time. For Messrs Cameron _and_ Clegg.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan