Syria: Regarding motivation for launching a sizeable chemical attack, it appears the US has gone for the simplest theory is the best..
August 22nd post - 'Syria: Occam's Razor: The whys of the alleged chemical weapons attack.
The more I look at this alleged attack the more it militarily at least makes sense. In Damascus insurgents have, since late July, have been very busy in the areas where the chemical attacks (multiple) have been reported as occurring. Regime forces have been unable to boot them out and in fact the insurgents have made it a hot zone. With Assad's forces stretched he is not able to truly attack on the ground in more than a couple of areas at once so a convenient way of reversing things in the Eastern Damascus suburb is to clear it by range firepower or a whiff of gas.
The chemical attack did have all the signs of a classic Warsaw Pact move, as it was followed up by heavy conventional shelling and air strikes though not quite so much ground activity.'
US officials today: 'The regime had been focused on those neighborhoods and wanted to clear the area of opposition fighters. The US official said that pro-regime forces had exhausted their conventional options, and he emphasized that “the regime considers chemical weapons in its portfolio of military use. They do not see it as an extreme measure for extreme cases.”
Whether people believe it or not it appears the US is going for the 'military logic' route.
I didn't think that Blair would mislead us on the evidence when it came to taking the country into war in Iraq, should I be surprised that Miliband lied to Cameron about supporting a strong and robust response to the Assad Regime using chemical weapons in Syria, leaving us with no worthwhile response whatsoever? As others have noted, the sight of Labour MP's who backed Blair scuttling through the lobby to vote down even a response to chemical weapons actually being used in country infiltrated by terrorists on both sides make your post seem even more cheap in its partisan tone.
Imagine my surprise to find perennial haters of the Labour party on here seeking to blame Miliband for the murder of children and for providing succour to dictators. Whoever would have thought it?
@BBCGavinHewitt via Twitter John Kerry on Syria referred to 'our oldest ally the French'. Historically true but a sign that UK may feel a cold chill from Washington
AndyJS - See my earlier post below, according to IFOP 59% of French oppose intervention, 50% of Americans according to ABC also opposed
@BBCGavinHewitt via Twitter John Kerry on Syria referred to 'our oldest ally the French'. Historically true but a sign that UK may feel a cold chill from Washington
AndyJS - See my earlier post below, according to IFOP 59% of French oppose intervention, 50% of Americans according to ABC also opposed
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.
The "Special Relationship" is very specific. It relates, solely and entirely, to the embedding of military intelligence within each other nations facilities. (I am family, friends, for instance with a former US naval liaison to the British naval intelligence). They get to go everywhere, and see everything.
Anything else is crud made up by the media and politicians
BTW this is the important bit of context for when you hear people saying the US and UK are only spying on foreigners and not on citizens, which in the US case is required by their constitution. The US can spy on the UK, the UK can spy on the US, they share what they find. That way they don't need to be handicapped by awkward things like constitutions.
Syria: Cheap ways of managing the prison population....
Syrian activists are raising the alarm that the regime is moving detainees out of prisons and into evacuated military bases that they think might targeted by a foreign strike. A UN source confirmed that the chemical weapons inspection team has witnessed prisoner movements during their time in Damascus.
On the actual substance of this, if Obama bombs Assad's side over chemical weapons, then the rebel side uses chemical weapons, as they may well do, is he going to bomb them as well?
FPT @edmundintokyo - Can France bomb the presidential palace?
Yes, they could make a symbolic attack like that. The missiles Fluffy mentioned were long-range air-launched ones. I don't think they could do much more than that though without gearing up in advance (and only if the Russians let them). It was different in Libya because they could take a calculated gamble that most of the Libyan air defense wouldn't work.
@BBCGavinHewitt via Twitter John Kerry on Syria referred to 'our oldest ally the French'. Historically true but a sign that UK may feel a cold chill from Washington
AndyJS - See my earlier post below, according to IFOP 59% of French oppose intervention, 50% of Americans according to ABC also opposed
At this rate he'll end up back at "You forgot Poland"...
Well Miliband didn't do his job as LotO, he went yeah but no, on a cross party consensus on Syria. After Cameron met his demands he went yeah, but no.
You've posted this in various forms repeatedly, but it doesn't make it true. Labour's position (which I don't agree with, by the way) was put down in their amendment, which the Government said was almost identical but voted down anyway. Miliband was explicit that if that happened, Labour would oppose the substantive motion.
If Cameron had accepted the amendment, Britain's involvement would still be likely and we'd be debating the significance of the Labour MPs who revolted. It's factually wrong for you to claim that Miliband promised support and then went back on it. But Cameron presumably calculated that he could win with his own votes so didn't need to make the minor time concession in the amendment.
Comments
August 22nd post - 'Syria: Occam's Razor: The whys of the alleged chemical weapons attack.
The more I look at this alleged attack the more it militarily at least makes sense. In Damascus insurgents have, since late July, have been very busy in the areas where the chemical attacks (multiple) have been reported as occurring. Regime forces have been unable to boot them out and in fact the insurgents have made it a hot zone. With Assad's forces stretched he is not able to truly attack on the ground in more than a couple of areas at once so a convenient way of reversing things in the Eastern Damascus suburb is to clear it by range firepower or a whiff of gas.
The chemical attack did have all the signs of a classic Warsaw Pact move, as it was followed up by heavy conventional shelling and air strikes though not quite so much ground activity.'
US officials today: 'The regime had been focused on those neighborhoods and wanted to clear the area of opposition fighters. The US official said that pro-regime forces had exhausted their conventional options, and he emphasized that “the regime considers chemical weapons in its portfolio of military use. They do not see it as an extreme measure for extreme cases.”
Whether people believe it or not it appears the US is going for the 'military logic' route.
John Kerry on Syria referred to 'our oldest ally the French'. Historically true but a sign that UK may feel a cold chill from Washington
AndyJS - See my earlier post below, according to IFOP 59% of French oppose intervention, 50% of Americans according to ABC also opposed
Syrian activists are raising the alarm that the regime is moving detainees out of prisons and into evacuated military bases that they think might targeted by a foreign strike. A UN source confirmed that the chemical weapons inspection team has witnessed prisoner movements during their time in Damascus.
- Can France bomb the presidential palace?
Yes, they could make a symbolic attack like that. The missiles Fluffy mentioned were long-range air-launched ones. I don't think they could do much more than that though without gearing up in advance (and only if the Russians let them). It was different in Libya because they could take a calculated gamble that most of the Libyan air defense wouldn't work.
If Cameron had accepted the amendment, Britain's involvement would still be likely and we'd be debating the significance of the Labour MPs who revolted. It's factually wrong for you to claim that Miliband promised support and then went back on it. But Cameron presumably calculated that he could win with his own votes so didn't need to make the minor time concession in the amendment.