"What happens when he decides to act on that learning? When intervention is unlikely to make things better – and limited air- and missile-strikes wouldn’t – it’s highly probable that they’ll make things worse."
That's the key, I don't see limited attacks having much effect If you rule out boots on the ground you have to be prepared to bomb extensively, it took 78 days in the Kosovo campaign.
To do that you need to be sure why you are bombing and be willing to accept the consequences.
So when you're hitting refugee convoys, commuter trains and Chinese embassies by mistake you can clearly explain why helping Al Qaeda is in the interest of the people of Syria and Britain.
It's the people of Britain that will have lost on Thursday. Not because the outcome of the vote went against their wishes; it didn't, but because the British people have been losing out to governments and political parties with their own agendas against the long term interests of the nation for short term gains, either ideological or partizan in other ways, ever since WW2.
Can we as a people redress this great imbalance? Only by kicking out the Lab/Lib/Con party and voting for something very different. A start, and only a start, can be made by voting UKIP at all opportunities. It is the best, indeed the only chance, at present, to halt the decline of the British or English, if you prefer it, as a nation.
We all know where you stand, but you are beginning to sound a bit like tim
You can say what you like about me but please don't compare me to tim who sits 24/7 in front of his computer and spouts bullying or whining drivel.
I'm only saying or repeating what iIthink and the only people I have attacked on PB are politicians of various parties. I have never instigated an attack on a PB contributer, although I have replied to attacks on me.
It was the repeating part to which I was referring. FYI I did once vote UKIP but would not now.
' A backbencher who attended says: “The Prime Minister spent a lot of time talking about how a vote against the Government on this issue was playing into Labour’s hands and one person pointed out that this wasn’t about Labour – it was about Syria.” '
Perhaps one of the cheerleaders can tell us yet again how it was only Labour which was playing party politics.
The Telegraph lays bare the utter incompetence of the Number 10 operation, as well as the muddled thinking and the hubris. It was a botched job of epic proportions. And when push came to shove the national interest did not come into it. The plea to wavering MPs was don't play into Labour's hands. Yuck.
Apparently Cameron told Miliband over phone that he was helping Russia and not our friends in the U.S.Without a good plan,he`s forced to make juvenile arguments while failing to make a good case to intervene for the people of SYRIA and our national interest.
There is set view of the tory press ; then there is the public reaction. The latter, which does not conform to the view of the likes of Dan Hodges and Quentin Letts, will be showing up in the polls shortly.
I doubt it. This episode erupted very quickly. People have not had time to give it much notice. I'd be surprised if Cameron's position will be harmed and I'd be shocked if it moved the party ratings one way or the other. Ed may get a bounce from Labour voters, but not a huge one. He gave a poor speech on Thursday and the real story here is the one published in today's Telegraph: the sheer ineptitude inside 10 Downing Street and the Tory whips' office.
"BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama says he is considering a “limited, narrow” military strike against Syria — an aim that many Middle East experts fear overlooks the potential to worsen the violence in Syria and intensify a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
"BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama says he is considering a “limited, narrow” military strike against Syria — an aim that many Middle East experts fear overlooks the potential to worsen the violence in Syria and intensify a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
What now for the Lib Dems? – Is this the first time since their formation that a party leader has so strongly called for, and all but a handful of MPs have voted in favour of UK military intervention?
Apparently Cameron told Miliband over phone that he was helping Russia and not our friends in the U.S.Without a good plan,he`s forced to make juvenile arguments while failing to make a good case to intervene for the people of SYRIA and our national interest.
Was that the entirety of the phone call, or perhaps Syria was discussed before? It would not be improper for them to discuss the geopolitical implications of any decision -- it would be stupid of a leader not to consider these things.
Would a Number Ten operation and a whips office run by a competent leader have allowed this to happen?
When you're looking for a scapegoat to blame for us not intervening in Syria...er.....blame the person who most strongly advocated intervention in Syria
Was wondering how many PBers have had personal experience as a civilian of being bombed, shelled or shot at. Very few I expect. It is easy to advocate such action if you are 100s of miles way - on the other hand rabid dogs have to be put down for the protection of others.
"the real story here is the one published in today's Telegraph: the sheer ineptitude inside 10 Downing Street and the Tory whips' office."
And the follow up question.
Would a Number Ten operation and a whips office run by a competent leader have allowed this to happen?
With respect that is nonsense. What you are really saying is that a better whipping operation would have excused Labour the consequences of their actions. But they are responsible for their actions, every bit as much as any minister who failed to vote for whatever reason.
Labour voted against the principle of intervention. That was their choice. Deal with it. Don't try and blame others.
Apparently Cameron told Miliband over phone that he was helping Russia and not our friends in the U.S.Without a good plan,he`s forced to make juvenile arguments while failing to make a good case to intervene for the people of SYRIA and our national interest.
Was that the entirety of the phone call, or perhaps Syria was discussed before? It would not be improper for them to discuss the geopolitical implications of any decision -- it would be stupid of a leader not to consider these things.
Ofcourse Syria would have been discussed but I don`t think he would have been persuasive.
Cameron failed to make a good case for intervention in Parliament and made it worse by saying `it was a judgement call`.When people needed to see solid evidence,he was asking them to go on trust.With the memories of Iraq and Blair,that was never going to work and it didn`t convince a lot of MP`s in his coalition.
"the real story here is the one published in today's Telegraph: the sheer ineptitude inside 10 Downing Street and the Tory whips' office."
And the follow up question.
Would a Number Ten operation and a whips office run by a competent leader have allowed this to happen?
With respect that is nonsense. What you are really saying is that a better whipping operation would have excused Labour the consequences of their actions. But they are responsible for their actions, every bit as much as any minister who failed to vote for whatever reason.
Labour voted against the principle of intervention. That was their choice. Deal with it. Don't try and blame others.
The Tories voted against it too. Many could even back their own motion. That's the point.
The only real benefit I can see from targeted strikes is to bring the war directly to Assad and co. so far it seems they (including their families etc) have been fairly insulated from the direct effects of the war. I am sure that their living conditions are pretty good with plenty of food and safe beds to sleep in at night etc. if you target the presidential palaces and ministries and destroy them then that feeling of distance and safety is gone and it will perhaps focus minds on whether it is better to try and find a peaceful solution or to continue wondering whether your home will be blown up one day and maybe you and your family in it.
They might start to sympathise more with the plight of the ordinary Syrian if they suddenly have to try and find safe and substandard places to sleep and possibly even have to move every night for safety - I imagine that this is not only difficult but psychologically draining and might instil a desire to end it.
I can imagine if Mrs Assad's extensive collection of designer shoes and clothes is disintegrated then any handbag she has left might find its way round her husband's head.....
"BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama says he is considering a “limited, narrow” military strike against Syria — an aim that many Middle East experts fear overlooks the potential to worsen the violence in Syria and intensify a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
1) The risks of letting regimes get away with the use of banned chemical weapons are many and varied, in both the short term (further use in Syria) and the long term (its effects on the perception of weapons treaties).
2) The risks to escalation in the region because of the threat of chemical weapons usage is high. Jordan and Turkey are already worried about their borders and the massed refugees in the camps. Syria has already shelled Turkish territory; Turkey complained and moved soldiers in reaction, but did little else. If a chemical weapon was to cross the border it would be war. Fortunately it appears that much of the region around the border is not in Assad's hands, reducing this risk slightly. However the same cannot be said of Jordan,and even a false alarm could trigger a wider war.
3) A prolonged continuation of the Syrian civil war to the region is highly destabilising. There is already a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia; the longer the conflict goes on, the worse it will get. Any limited raid on Assad's regime targeting aspects of chemical weapons (if not the weapons themselves) will weaken him.
Sadly, technicians have not yet been able to perfect the new crystal-ball technology to see which of these are right (and they are not mutually exclusive). However these points are just as valid as the one in the article.
As I said earlier in the week, I don't envy Cameron having to make a decision on this. But at least he came up with a plan. Miliband kyboshed that plan and does not have an alternative.
"BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama says he is considering a “limited, narrow” military strike against Syria — an aim that many Middle East experts fear overlooks the potential to worsen the violence in Syria and intensify a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
Are you saying attacking a country with a couple of hundred cruise missiles might have some kind repercussions for the region and international politics? I find that hard to believe.
Was wondering how many PBers have had personal experience as a civilian of being bombed, shelled or shot at. Very few I expect. It is easy to advocate such action if you are 100s of miles way - on the other hand rabid dogs have to be put down for the protection of others.
Here we go, it's Forrest Gump's Anecdote Hour.
You would not have any idea- being 24/7 in a bunker, safely isolated from the real world.
The only real benefit I can see from targeted strikes is to bring the war directly to Assad and co. so far it seems they (including their families etc) have been fairly insulated from the direct effects of the war. I am sure that their living conditions are pretty good with plenty of food and safe beds to sleep in at night etc. if you target the presidential palaces and ministries and destroy them then that feeling of distance and safety is gone and it will perhaps focus minds on whether it is better to try and find a peaceful solution or to continue wondering whether your home will be blown up one day and maybe you and your family in it.
They might start to sympathise more with the plight of the ordinary Syrian if they suddenly have to try and find safe and substandard places to sleep and possibly even have to move every night for safety - I imagine that this is not only difficult but psychologically draining and might instil a desire to end it.
I can imagine if Mrs Assad's extensive collection of designer shoes and clothes is disintegrated then any handbag she has left might find its way round her husband's head.....
They know all too well the effects of war. Assad's brother is rumoured to have lost a leg last year (at the time some even claimed he'd died). Someone (YOkel?) surmised that this might be one reason why they are fighting so strenuously and using chemical weapons.
"the real story here is the one published in today's Telegraph: the sheer ineptitude inside 10 Downing Street and the Tory whips' office."
And the follow up question.
Would a Number Ten operation and a whips office run by a competent leader have allowed this to happen?
With respect that is nonsense. What you are really saying is that a better whipping operation would have excused Labour the consequences of their actions. But they are responsible for their actions, every bit as much as any minister who failed to vote for whatever reason.
Labour voted against the principle of intervention. That was their choice. Deal with it. Don't try and blame others.
The Tories voted against it too. Many could even back their own motion. That's the point.
30 tories voted against. Over 200 Labour MPs did. Each and every one of them made a choice with consequences. As I have said repeatedly I was personally against us getting involved here and have a lot of sympathy with those who opposed.
But the stench of moral hypocrisy on the part of those who voted against but now want to blame someone else for the result is sickening. MPs are supposed to be adults. One in particular aspires to be the next PM of this country. He must accept the consequences of his decision, the good and the bad. The damage to our relationship with the US, the reduction in the UK's standing in the world, our lack of influence on future developments since it has been decided we are not a player in the game. These are all real consequences of the votes that were cast.
If you strongly believe that the killing of conscript soldiers pretty much at random is simply morally abhorrent and unlikely to make anything better then you accept those consequences and rationalise that abstinence is the lesser evil. But blaming someone else for not succeeding when you voted against is pathetic. Just pathetic.
As I said earlier in the week, I don't envy Cameron having to make a decision on this. But at least he came up with a plan. Miliband kyboshed that plan and does not have an alternative.
Classic politician's syllogism stuff there.
Cameron's plan was to bomb without compelling evidence of responsibility or a convincing explanation of what would happen next. The alternative plan is not to bomb without compelling evidence of responsibility or a convincing explanation of what would happen next.
PS. The plan _should_ be for developed countries to accept refugees, which is far more likely to help people than bombing, far less likely to backfire and end up causing harm, far more effective in helping people per pound spent and may even turn a profit.
"the real story here is the one published in today's Telegraph: the sheer ineptitude inside 10 Downing Street and the Tory whips' office."
And the follow up question.
Would a Number Ten operation and a whips office run by a competent leader have allowed this to happen?
With respect that is nonsense. What you are really saying is that a better whipping operation would have excused Labour the consequences of their actions. But they are responsible for their actions, every bit as much as any minister who failed to vote for whatever reason.
Labour voted against the principle of intervention. That was their choice. Deal with it. Don't try and blame others.
What I am saying is that in his rush to follow a US timetable for action the PM did not prepare close to adequately in terms of drafting a motion, thinking through the consequences of UK involvement or engaging with the government's own backbenches. He did not know how they would vote. And when it became apparent he did not have sufficient support his plea to them was not to the national interest, but to not play into Labour's hands. Miliband and Labour had made their position clear before Cameron went to the Commons on Thursday. But Cameron did not know what his own side thought. That is abysmal on every level. Obviously, it's easier to blame "disreputable" Miliband for Cameron's fiasco if you are a Tory loyalist and/or a convinced Labour hater, but that is just a fig leaf that will no-one who is not a loyalist/hater.
"the real story here is the one published in today's Telegraph: the sheer ineptitude inside 10 Downing Street and the Tory whips' office."
And the follow up question.
Would a Number Ten operation and a whips office run by a competent leader have allowed this to happen?
With respect that is nonsense. What you are really saying is that a better whipping operation would have excused Labour the consequences of their actions. But they are responsible for their actions, every bit as much as any minister who failed to vote for whatever reason.
Labour voted against the principle of intervention. That was their choice. Deal with it. Don't try and blame others.
The Tories voted against it too. Many could even back their own motion. That's the point.
30 tories voted against. Over 200 Labour MPs did. Each and every one of them made a choice with consequences. As I have said repeatedly I was personally against us getting involved here and have a lot of sympathy with those who opposed.
But the stench of moral hypocrisy on the part of those who voted against but now want to blame someone else for the result is sickening. MPs are supposed to be adults. One in particular aspires to be the next PM of this country. He must accept the consequences of his decision, the good and the bad. The damage to our relationship with the US, the reduction in the UK's standing in the world, our lack of influence on future developments since it has been decided we are not a player in the game. These are all real consequences of the votes that were cast.
If you strongly believe that the killing of conscript soldiers pretty much at random is simply morally abhorrent and unlikely to make anything better then you accept those consequences and rationalise that abstinence is the lesser evil. But blaming someone else for not succeeding when you voted against is pathetic. Just pathetic.
There were two motions. If either party has backed the others something would have passed. It's entirely balanced apart from the govts majority gives it the possibility of acting independently.
When the dust settles, I wonder what will be the abiding memories?
Cameron: Keen, puppy-like to follow Obama, meaning well, but bodging up the logistics. Clegg: Invisible Milliband: Ditherer, happy to pontificate at length but no decision-making. And a child-like delight in making mischief.
I may be grossly unfair to Ed, as I have my preconceptions but I can imagine him as PM if we faced an Alien invasion.
"Ed, they've obliterated Cheltenham, what do we do?" "I think we can all condemn such an act of barbarity. This shows the depths to which they may sink." "Ed, they've circling over Bristol." "The whole world will join together and act in unison. I think, we're better when we act as one, and I call upon the Martian Federation to realise the enormity of their folly."
"the real story here is the one published in today's Telegraph: the sheer ineptitude inside 10 Downing Street and the Tory whips' office."
And the follow up question.
Would a Number Ten operation and a whips office run by a competent leader have allowed this to happen?
With respect that is nonsense. What you are really saying is that a better whipping operation would have excused Labour the consequences of their actions. But they are responsible for their actions, every bit as much as any minister who failed to vote for whatever reason.
Labour voted against the principle of intervention. That was their choice. Deal with it. Don't try and blame others.
The Tories voted against it too. Many could even back their own motion. That's the point.
30 tories voted against. Over 200 Labour MPs did. Each and every one of them made a choice with consequences. As I have said repeatedly I was personally against us getting involved here and have a lot of sympathy with those who opposed.
But the stench of moral hypocrisy on the part of those who voted against but now want to blame someone else for the result is sickening. MPs are supposed to be adults. One in particular aspires to be the next PM of this country. He must accept the consequences of his decision, the good and the bad. The damage to our relationship with the US, the reduction in the UK's standing in the world, our lack of influence on future developments since it has been decided we are not a player in the game. These are all real consequences of the votes that were cast.
If you strongly believe that the killing of conscript soldiers pretty much at random is simply morally abhorrent and unlikely to make anything better then you accept those consequences and rationalise that abstinence is the lesser evil. But blaming someone else for not succeeding when you voted against is pathetic. Just pathetic.
Your position is not only pathetic,it`s hopeless.You accept that you didn`t want the UK to intervene in Syria and then criticise Miliband for taking the same stance as you.Your leader gambled with his hopeless backbenchers who hate him and the Lib Dems who hate war and lost.Deal with it!
Prince Harry is another example. So (ahem) is Simon Mann.
It's not like you to make such an unworthy attack.
Yep, fair enough, Mea culpa; blame not enough coffee.
So do you have any evidence that Bullingdon Club members do not, and have not historically, gone into the armed forces?
No doubt daddy used to get them in as Generals aides or similar. They would be at the back quaffing champers as the plebs got machine gunned and blown to pieces at the front
"When the dust settles, I wonder what will be the abiding memories?"
One of the abiding memories will be that Miliband's tone and approach was cautious from the start, and Cameron and Clegg's was gung-ho. That will matter more than the recently furiously spun line of dithering.
They know all too well the effects of war. Assad's brother is rumoured to have lost a leg last year (at the time some even claimed he'd died). Someone (YOkel?) surmised that this might be one reason why they are fighting so strenuously and using chemical weapons.
Good point but it is one thing for an active participant in the fighting to feel the effects but totally another thing for their families or those who have been insulated.
Up until now however it has been quite easy for the govt side to order tanks and rockets against weaker enemy knowing that they have the upper hand. It is a different matter if they know that every time they use excessive force they will get clobbered by someone else.
It is like the school bully who is happy to pick on smaller guys who suddenly finds that someone bigger and harder knocks a few of his teeth out. The bully might carry on bullying and try and do it more subtly or the bully might realise it is not worth it and stop.
"The possible military operation in Syria, the beginning of which is discussed by coalition forces, should continue until the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, CNN Turk TV Channel reported on Saturday. "A limited military operation in Syria is not enough. If the operation starts, it should force the Assad regime to relinquish power," Erdogan said."
That is a coherent position. Camerons position is incoherent, a few missiles is a nonsense, its bomb until Assad is removed and have a ground force ready or stop posturing.
This is the only realistic position on intervention. Air power to knock out Assad's military encampments and then 250,000 boots on the ground to oversee an orderly transition of power. Any other scenario is just half arsing it so Obama can look like he is doing something about his "red line" being crossed.
However, with all of the hardline Islamists and terrorist affiliates in the rebel forces, it's probably not in our interest to pursue this. Assad is the devil we know, and while bad, he has been the leader of Syria for a long time and had chemical weapons for a long time without using them against Israel, how can we be sure that the new guys will have the same policy...
I wonder if dancing to the US tune is the real principle to have evaporated in the last few days.
Maybe people don;t mind intervening. They don;t want to intervene on America's terms.
And they don;t want to intervene with weak armed services.
There's probably a lot of truth in that. As Miliband has said, sometimes US and UK interests and priorities will be aligned, at other times they won't be.
Was wondering how many PBers have had personal experience as a civilian of being bombed, shelled or shot at. Very few I expect. It is easy to advocate such action if you are 100s of miles way - on the other hand rabid dogs have to be put down for the protection of others.
Here we go, it's Forrest Gump's Anecdote Hour.
You would not have any idea- being 24/7 in a bunker, safely isolated from the real world.
"Having just caught up with last night's threads, noticed the picture of the Miliband brothers in the Letts piece. It struck me that both their faces and countenances showed hints of twistedness and of insincerity. Often the face reveals the true nature of the heart."
I think once you've posted that you become a patient rather than the psychiatrist.
But I am not full of bile, venom and hate like a trapped snake, striking out at anyone who gets too near you - also I do not await instructions from McBride who holds your collar and lead.
The irony of Thursday evening's vote is that it confirmed that apart from having nuclear weapons, the UK is a second level country and neither France nor we should be permanent members of the UN now. Time the UN was reformed.
I continue to believe the domestic effect has been grossly exaggerated by the media. Few people now read papers or watch the TV news. David Cameron lost the vote but he dared to do what Blair failed to do, he let Parliament decide.
Just watched Dan Hodges on SKY explaining his resignation from the Labour party after nearly 30 years. His media comments about Bland the Younger are not going to get any better for the Labour leadership.
Lib Dem president fails to back Clegg on Syria - Telegraph
Nick Clegg was dealt a damaging blow to his leadership as almost half of his MPs, including the party president, revolted over his backing of military intervention in Syria.
After Clegg's hopeless summer of totally misjudging his own party yet again on issues like civil liberties, freedom of the press etc. this can only be great news for calamity Clegg.
My main take-away from the last few days is that "something must be done" does not stand up to scrutiny as a foreign policy (and thank heavens for that). I'm not sure that there are any wider lessons than that. President Obama would do well to think about that also.
Personally, I'd be delighted if Britain scaled back its foreign policy ambitions, but I don't think my view is representative of the British public on this front.
Was wondering how many PBers have had personal experience as a civilian of being bombed, shelled or shot at. Very few I expect. It is easy to advocate such action if you are 100s of miles way - on the other hand rabid dogs have to be put down for the protection of others.
Here we go, it's Forrest Gump's Anecdote Hour.
Cliche wrapped up in orotundity, a life experience for every occasion, the self-aggrandisement, the breathless literary (non) style. It's Jeffrey Archer, isn't it?
The price America has charged for its support is that Britain essentially remains a weak satellite country. In WWII they were relentless in crushing the last vestiges of empire.
The last thing the Americans want to see is Britain emerge as a independent well resourced regional power.
It is not a crass point at all. I doubt if there was national service without exceptions that many of the armchair warriors would be so keen on military intervention if there own children were to be put on the front line.
And that is a criticism I would aim at Tony Blair.
And it was a crass point - people join all sorts of clubs and societies.
They chose to go to university instead of join up at 18. Indeed, by the same mark your accusation could fit almost everyone who chooses to attend university, and indeed the majority of the population who have never served. Except many people join up after uni - indeed, the army used to sponsor some people through uni (I assume they still do). (*)
So you have no evidence for your assertion.
Your comment was just stupid class warfare. "Oooh, how can I bring the Bullingdon Club into this, and make them sound like cowards!"
Contemptible.
I could ask how many members of the CU Labour Club fought in Iraq.
What I am saying is that in his rush to follow a US timetable for action the PM did not prepare close to adequately in terms of drafting a motion, thinking through the consequences of UK involvement or engaging with the government's own backbenches. He did not know how they would vote. And when it became apparent he did not have sufficient support his plea to them was not to the national interest, but to not play into Labour's hands. Miliband and Labour had made their position clear before Cameron went to the Commons on Thursday. But Cameron did not know what his own side thought. That is abysmal on every level. Obviously, it's easier to blame "disreputable" Miliband for Cameron's fiasco if you are a Tory loyalist and/or a convinced Labour hater, but that is just a fig leaf that will no-one who is not a loyalist/hater.
I am not claiming that this was a competent operation by No 10. But your description does not fit the facts. Cameron seems to have made at least 3 changes of position (a second motion, waiting for the weapons inspectors to confirm the obvious, a vote in the UN security council) probably more, to accomodate Miliband's concerns. He did not do this out of the goodness of his heart but because he believed that it is important that when this country sends people to war they do it on a united basis.
Cameron was obviously convinced that Labour would ultimately support the watered down motion he was proposing. Not having every minister back from holiday is evidence of this. Maybe he was just stupid or maybe he was misled. Whatever. The point I am making is that really is not the point. The point is MPs are responsible for their individual votes, Miliband included.
Whining about No 10's errors in failing to beat you is pathetic.
NATO led air power and a predominantly Turkish-Arab League ground force is and has always been the only option here to avoid huge bloodshed. Thats the case Cameron should've been pushing for the last two years.
That's not a realistic option. The Arab League won't want to get their hands dirty like that, they never do. If troops need to be sent it they would be a joint US/UK taskforce with some limited involvement from France and Turkey. Time and again, other nations talk the talk, but only the US and UK have walked the walk.
To that extent, Cameron was right in a sense to avoid talking endgame because the realistic endgame is 50,000 British troops stationed in Syria for the next 5-7 years. The air power would come from Britain, America and France as well. I don't see it being a NATO operation, too many objections from within.
Cameron was obviously convinced that Labour would ultimately support the watered down motion he was proposing. Not having every minister back from holiday is evidence of this. Maybe he was just stupid or maybe he was misled. Whatever. The point I am making is that really is not the point. The point is MPs are responsible for their individual votes, Miliband included.
Whining about No 10's errors in failing to beat you is pathetic.
If Cameron was convinced Labour would support the government motion when Miliband made it absolutely and unequivocally clear before Parliament reconvened that it would not then he should resign. But not even I believe he could have been that incompetent.
How many Turkish troops is Erdogan prepared to commit to the invasion of Syria?
He wants to do it with Western blood and treasure. They all do.
I think that's unfair. My reading of the situation from a Turkish position (note, I have no inside information on this):
Turkey is under pressure in several ways. Firstly, there is a refugee crisis on its borders. This is causing pressure on the local areas, and the situation is not helped by the FSA being present in some of the camps. Turkey has spent $700 million on the refugees, and until recently were giving them better-than-basic facilities (the Jordan refugees have to make do with tents). If you have a Syrian passport, you can temporarily settle anywhere in the country. (1)
Secondly, Turkey has at some time or another controlled most of the nations in the area. Any actions outside its borders will be viewed with suspicion by many. If they were to act, it would have to be with wide international support. The Ottoman Empire echoes just as strongly for Turkey and its international relations as the British Empire does for us.
Thirdly, there is a Kurdish angle. Anyone with knowledge of the PKK will know their aims, and why Turkey has been fighting them for years. There is a considerable Kurdish population in Syria, and they are rebelling. So Turkey ends up actively aiding the very people who have been supporting terrorism inside their country.
Fourthly, the government has problems with its own population; the discontent that flared up earlier in the year is far from dying down.
Fifthly, there is the religious angle. Turkey is predominately Sunni, and any intervention will be viewed by its neighbours on that basis. Another downside to Erdogan's steady demolition of secularism.
The situation is not sustainable in the middle-to-long term. Something will have to give.
I'm not sure that Turkey wants Western blood and treasure. What they would want is for any action to have legitimacy in the West, and they might need help. I don't envy them their position.
MG .. You have a strange view of how the miltary works.. Historic note.. In the trenches of the first world war the officers were the first over the top, armed with a pistol,enemy machine gunners lined up on them... not a lot came back.
Prince Harry is another example. So (ahem) is Simon Mann.
It's not like you to make such an unworthy attack.
Yep, fair enough, Mea culpa; blame not enough coffee.
So do you have any evidence that Bullingdon Club members do not, and have not historically, gone into the armed forces?
No doubt daddy used to get them in as Generals aides or similar. They would be at the back quaffing champers as the plebs got machine gunned and blown to pieces at the front
Typical of the chippy underdog garbage that fills your clouded mind .
"The possible military operation in Syria, the beginning of which is discussed by coalition forces, should continue until the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, CNN Turk TV Channel reported on Saturday. "A limited military operation in Syria is not enough. If the operation starts, it should force the Assad regime to relinquish power," Erdogan said."
That is a coherent position. Camerons position is incoherent, a few missiles is a nonsense, its bomb until Assad is removed and have a ground force ready or stop posturing.
What rubbish. Your hatred of Cameron is legendary, but perhaps you should take the blinkers off your eyes.
MG .. You have a strange view of how the miltary works.. Historic note.. In the trenches of the first world war the officers were the first over the top, armed with a pistol,enemy machine gunners lined up on them... not a lot came back.
In Northern Ireland only idiots with lots of problems went out with pistols but my dad still had to borrow a rifle each time since the British army did not issue him with one.
MG .. You have a strange view of how the miltary works.. Historic note.. In the trenches of the first world war the officers were the first over the top, armed with a pistol,enemy machine gunners lined up on them... not a lot came back.
Morning Richard, yes the expendable ones but back at HQ , quaffing champers were all the elite , deciding which 20 or 30 thousand were cannon fodder of the day. It has always been so. The same elite run everything today. How many Bullingdons or their like can you name that died on the front line, clue is that it will be a very very short list.
"No doubt daddy used to get them in as Generals aides or similar. They would be at the back quaffing champers as the plebs got machine gunned and blown to pieces at the front
That is such a clichéd bullshit and ignorant thing to write. All of my friends from the top public schools who joined the army have served on the front line exposed to every bit as much danger as the "plebs". They served and faced that same danger in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan and several have been very badly injured. They have also had to live with the trauma of leading their men out on patrols and coming back with dead colleagues and severely wounded men which always weighs heavily on their consciences as they feel responsible.
You only have to go to those schools and look at the war memorials from the Crimea to the world wars and up to present day conflicts to see that these guys fought and died on the front line - they were not deaths from misplaced champagne corks.
A couple of years ago winchester had a presentation to the 38 old boys who had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq up to that point. Would love to have seen you level such an accusation against them. Or perhaps the 500 old wykehamist who died in the First World War including over 20 brigadier generals.
JJ.. You should know by now that tim is an expert on absolutely everything in the world, even stacking offie shelves and running a Cheshire estate.. such talent PM, No prob
Prince Harry is another example. So (ahem) is Simon Mann.
It's not like you to make such an unworthy attack.
Yep, fair enough, Mea culpa; blame not enough coffee.
So do you have any evidence that Bullingdon Club members do not, and have not historically, gone into the armed forces?
No doubt daddy used to get them in as Generals aides or similar. They would be at the back quaffing champers as the plebs got machine gunned and blown to pieces at the front
Typical of the chippy underdog garbage that fills your clouded mind .
Yes Monica , we know how the baubles are given out. Have you ever looked at the Royal family and their hangers on , they can hardly walk due to the amount of baubles they have adorned themselves with, makes the point of the medals a joke. Surprisingly the same people I was talking about decide who get the baubles and amazingly they give most of them to their chums.
"No doubt daddy used to get them in as Generals aides or similar. They would be at the back quaffing champers as the plebs got machine gunned and blown to pieces at the front
That is such a clichéd bullshit and ignorant thing to write. All of my friends from the top public schools who joined the army have served on the front line exposed to every bit as much danger as the "plebs". They served and faced that same danger in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan and several have been very badly injured. They have also had to live with the trauma of leading their men out on patrols and coming back with dead colleagues and severely wounded men which always weighs heavily on their consciences as they feel responsible.
You only have to go to those schools and look at the war memorials from the Crimea to the world wars and up to present day conflicts to see that these guys fought and died on the front line - they were not deaths from misplaced champagne corks.
A couple of years ago winchester had a presentation to the 38 old boys who had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq up to that point. Would love to have seen you level such an accusation against them. Or perhaps the 500 old wykehamist who died in the First World War including over 20 brigadier generals.
You are an idiot.
LOL, open another bottle of Bolly before you choke on your caviar
@DavidL "I think there is still a complete air of unreality about so much of this debate. Were our 5 tomahawks really supposed to give the UK PM control or even much of a say on what the US President targetted? Were we supposed to be given control of the timing of the exercise on this basis?"
If all we've got are 5 tomahawks to deliver, Britains armed forces are in a very bad way.
Could some warmonger expalin to me why we needed to have a parliamentary session on Thursday when Parliament was coming back on Monday anyway.
Cameron may have lost 10 votes just because of that. Some were pissed off, some just angry ! Trouble is most were on his side.
I don't think Labour had envisaged they could win the vote. AS they ahd expected they lost their own amendment by miles.
Curiously, all the minor parties [ including the DUP ] voted against Cameron. They ahd very little party political arithmetic to worry about. I suppose they just represented their constituents views.
A reminder of what the public actually thinks thus far.
YouGov finds public 2 to 1 against missiles strikes on Syria - 27 Aug 2013
Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun (£) has some fresh Syria questions, just tweeted out by Tom Newton Dunn and reported on Sky News. The public remain overwhelmingly opposed to British troops being sent into Syria, but more importantly the poll also asked specifically about whether people would support a missile attack on Syria. 50% of people would oppose this course of action, 25% would support it. Even Tories are against missile strikes by 45-33% (Labour voters are against by 54% to 26%, Lib Dems by 47% to 27%)
A reminder of what the public actually thinks thus far.
YouGov finds public 2 to 1 against missiles strikes on Syria - 27 Aug 2013
Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun (£) has some fresh Syria questions, just tweeted out by Tom Newton Dunn and reported on Sky News. The public remain overwhelmingly opposed to British troops being sent into Syria, but more importantly the poll also asked specifically about whether people would support a missile attack on Syria. 50% of people would oppose this course of action, 25% would support it. Even Tories are against missile strikes by 45-33% (Labour voters are against by 54% to 26%, Lib Dems by 47% to 27%)
@DavidL "I think there is still a complete air of unreality about so much of this debate. Were our 5 tomahawks really supposed to give the UK PM control or even much of a say on what the US President targetted? Were we supposed to be given control of the timing of the exercise on this basis?"
If all we've got are 5 tomahawks to deliver, Britains armed forces are in a very bad way.
Could some warmonger expalin to me why we needed to have a parliamentary session on Thursday when Parliament was coming back on Monday anyway.
Well for a start Parliament does have a legislative schedule which picks up on Monday. It is not as if they come back and just twiddle their thumbs until something comes up.
Tim/Taffys - John McCain has also criticised Obama for not pressing for Assad's overthrow (though he is at odds with the likes of Speaker Boehner on this who is more sceptical)
Since it was members of the Bullingdon Club and not public schools in general that were being discussed, the idiocy appears to lie elsewhere.
The bullingdon club has members from a spread of schools, not just Eton. It's ranks are usually full of a mix of Etonians, paulines, wykehamists, harrovians, westminsters etc. many of its past members have fought in wars. So the argument that just because they are in bullingdon then their fathers would pull strings to get them cushy jobs in the army is nonsense - they have to go through the same as everyone else who joins as an officer whether they were in bullingdon or not. Malcomg's attack was simply an extension of the class war nonsense about public school boys in the army.
"No doubt daddy used to get them in as Generals aides or similar. They would be at the back quaffing champers as the plebs got machine gunned and blown to pieces at the front
That is such a clichéd bullshit and ignorant thing to write. All of my friends from the top public schools who joined the army have served on the front line exposed to every bit as much danger as the "plebs". They served and faced that same danger in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan and several have been very badly injured. They have also had to live with the trauma of leading their men out on patrols and coming back with dead colleagues and severely wounded men which always weighs heavily on their consciences as they feel responsible.
You only have to go to those schools and look at the war memorials from the Crimea to the world wars and up to present day conflicts to see that these guys fought and died on the front line - they were not deaths from misplaced champagne corks.
A couple of years ago winchester had a presentation to the 38 old boys who had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq up to that point. Would love to have seen you level such an accusation against them. Or perhaps the 500 old wykehamist who died in the First World War including over 20 brigadier generals.
A reminder of what the public actually thinks thus far.
YouGov finds public 2 to 1 against missiles strikes on Syria - 27 Aug 2013
Tonight’s YouGov poll for the Sun (£) has some fresh Syria questions, just tweeted out by Tom Newton Dunn and reported on Sky News. The public remain overwhelmingly opposed to British troops being sent into Syria, but more importantly the poll also asked specifically about whether people would support a missile attack on Syria. 50% of people would oppose this course of action, 25% would support it. Even Tories are against missile strikes by 45-33% (Labour voters are against by 54% to 26%, Lib Dems by 47% to 27%)
Could some warmonger expalin to me why we needed to have a parliamentary session on Thursday when Parliament was coming back on Monday anyway.
Well for a start Parliament does have a legislative schedule which picks up on Monday. It is not as if they come back and just twiddle their thumbs until something comes up.
Is it true that MPs have longer holidays than even teachers?
MickPork - Interestingly that poll seems to suggest the LDs are back to being a genuine centrist party like they used to be until Charles Kennedy opposed Iraq. Labour is now the party of the anti-war, statist left, the Tories still the party of military action and the private sector, UKIP isolationists and small government types. The LDs are back to being a party of genuine liberals and internationalists prepared to intervene abroad where humanitarian needs demand
Is it true that MPs have longer holidays than even teachers?
Well, they have more time away from Parliament than teachers do. Good MPs will spend time away in their respective constituencies working on local matters.
Slashing defence spending against the backdrop of what is happening around the world looks like far and away the worst decision the coalition made since coming to power.
The party that wants us to have proper armed forces could reap an electoral dividend.
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale Rossendale and Darwen (shortlist: Will Straw vs Andy McNae) East Dunbartonshire
Pendle long list
Azhar Ali (Lancashire Cllr, president of Pendle CLP, backed by Unite) Malcolm Birks Lesley Delves (from Southport) Marcus Johnstone(Lancashire Cllr, from Burnley) Jim King (Salford Cllr) Chris McKimm (an ex soldier from Erby; stood in Barnoldswick Coates by-election last May)
Shortlisting tomorrow, selection on September 15th.
f all we've got are 5 tomahawks to deliver, Britains armed forces are in a very bad way.
That five figure seems to have been banded about a lot last night, anyone actually have a source for it or was it just pulled from someones arse? A Trafalgar-class submarine hosts 30, and then we have surface ships in the area too.
Why are people suggesting that the UK and US governments have been "rushed" into the current Syrian situation? Do they really think that no contingency plans existed for a "red-line" event.
People are also playing "arm-chair generals" by claiming we are going to be putting 'troops on the ground' (populated by divisions of the Durham Miners' Gala): Poppycock! What we will would be doing is deploying assets from afar; taking-out GBAD and C4 facilities and - generally - being a nasty bully to the junior son of some Marxist fool. Such is real-politik but there is no better solution available....
Since it was members of the Bullingdon Club and not public schools in general that were being discussed, the idiocy appears to lie elsewhere.
The bullingdon club has members from a spread of schools, not just Eton. It's ranks are usually full of a mix of Etonians, paulines, wykehamists, harrovians, westminsters etc. many of its past members have fought in wars. So the argument that just because they are in bullingdon then their fathers would pull strings to get them cushy jobs in the army is nonsense - they have to go through the same as everyone else who joins as an officer whether they were in bullingdon or not. Malcomg's attack was simply an extension of the class war nonsense about public school boys in the army.
The discussion started because of a piece in the Mail.
None of the people mentioned seemed to have joined up. If you can give the numbers of Buller men who have served over the years, or won VCs, I would be genuinely interested.
Ah yes, quite right. Now I remember. Vision Critical did that one, I think it's some new name for Angus Reid Isn't it?
Such a poll snob ;-)
I haven't the slightest idea why they changed their name to "vision critical" but I presume their methodology is reasonable enough. Even if the name sounds like something a go-getting twat from 'the Apprentice' would choose for his team of fellow attention seeking idiots. ;-)
Wonder who was doing the apologising in that Obama/Cameron phone call.
Off topic but I've been contacted with a detailed questionnaire by my Tory MP. Anyone else? Wonder if it's a local or national thing. If the latter, that and stuff like the 'pay more tax under Labour' stunt that was out a few days ago suggests they're stepping up the voter detail harvesting.
I haven't the slightest idea why they changed their name to "vision critical" but I presume their methodology is reasonable enough. Even if the name sounds like something a go-getting twat from 'the Apprentice' would choose for his team of fellow attention seeking idiots. ;-)
I'd agree with you more if it were "Alpha Vision" ;-)
There are many implications arising from the omnishambles of a foreign policy and the assertion of the HoC over the Executive. 1. Yes there is now a better balance in the power and role of the HoC. 2. Yes Cameron and Hague have suffered a serious blow. 3. Yes Obama and the USA will trust us less. But Obama was less friendly than most modern day Presidents. 4. It will however focus attention on getting the UN to tackle these isssues. 5. It may finally force Cameron to see the sense of having an able Chief Whip that he listens to. 6. It may force Cameron to have a single Party Chairman that he listens to.
As to Miliband, he has scored some points from his duplicitous behaviour. However his team know that he can be turned through threats of rebellion. As for trust, well if you are willing to lie to your mother over your intentions (bro Dave), then everyone should count their fingers any time Ed Miliband shakes your hand.
I haven't the slightest idea why they changed their name to "vision critical" but I presume their methodology is reasonable enough. Even if the name sounds like something a go-getting twat from 'the Apprentice' would choose for his team of fellow attention seeking idiots. ;-)
I'd agree with you more if it were "Alpha Vision" ;-)
Facing off against "Omega Solutions". You realise this will be even more amusing if yougov or ICM etc. embark on some rebranding of their own in response to Angus Reid and choose something similar. ;-)
Facing off against "Omega Solutions". You realise this will be even more amusing if yougov or ICM etc. embark on some rebranding of their own in response to Angus Reid and choose something similar. ;-)
Since it was members of the Bullingdon Club and not public schools in general that were being discussed, the idiocy appears to lie elsewhere.
The bullingdon club has members from a spread of schools, not just Eton. It's ranks are usually full of a mix of Etonians, paulines, wykehamists, harrovians, westminsters etc. many of its past members have fought in wars. So the argument that just because they are in bullingdon then their fathers would pull strings to get them cushy jobs in the army is nonsense - they have to go through the same as everyone else who joins as an officer whether they were in bullingdon or not. Malcomg's attack was simply an extension of the class war nonsense about public school boys in the army.
No it was the reality of life in Britain , where a rich elite still rule as they have done for hundreds of years , spoilt indolent no users who will get their positions solely on birth and privilege rather than on any talent.
Facing off against "Omega Solutions". You realise this will be even more amusing if yougov or ICM etc. embark on some rebranding of their own in response to Angus Reid and choose something similar. ;-)
I dare one of them to chose "ARSE".. LOL
A missed opportunity since "Angus Reid Strategic Enterprises" seems scarcely less silly than "Vision Critical". ;-)
Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130831&pagewanted=all
What now for the Lib Dems? – Is this the first time since their formation that a party leader has so strongly called for, and all but a handful of MPs have voted in favour of UK military intervention?
When you're looking for a scapegoat to blame for us not intervening in Syria...er.....blame the person who most strongly advocated intervention in Syria
".....an aim that many Middle East experts fear overlooks the potential to worsen the violence in Syria"
If the Americans seek UN approval to attack Syria I wonder whether the UK would vote against now that parliament has spoken?
Labour voted against the principle of intervention. That was their choice. Deal with it. Don't try and blame others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=68wJIQbCtlI
Cameron failed to make a good case for intervention in Parliament and made it worse by saying `it was a judgement call`.When people needed to see solid evidence,he was asking them to go on trust.With the memories of Iraq and Blair,that was never going to work and it didn`t convince a lot of MP`s in his coalition.
They might start to sympathise more with the plight of the ordinary Syrian if they suddenly have to try and find safe and substandard places to sleep and possibly even have to move every night for safety - I imagine that this is not only difficult but psychologically draining and might instil a desire to end it.
I can imagine if Mrs Assad's extensive collection of designer shoes and clothes is disintegrated then any handbag she has left might find its way round her husband's head.....
1) The risks of letting regimes get away with the use of banned chemical weapons are many and varied, in both the short term (further use in Syria) and the long term (its effects on the perception of weapons treaties).
2) The risks to escalation in the region because of the threat of chemical weapons usage is high. Jordan and Turkey are already worried about their borders and the massed refugees in the camps. Syria has already shelled Turkish territory; Turkey complained and moved soldiers in reaction, but did little else. If a chemical weapon was to cross the border it would be war. Fortunately it appears that much of the region around the border is not in Assad's hands, reducing this risk slightly. However the same cannot be said of Jordan,and even a false alarm could trigger a wider war.
3) A prolonged continuation of the Syrian civil war to the region is highly destabilising. There is already a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia; the longer the conflict goes on, the worse it will get. Any limited raid on Assad's regime targeting aspects of chemical weapons (if not the weapons themselves) will weaken him.
Sadly, technicians have not yet been able to perfect the new crystal-ball technology to see which of these are right (and they are not mutually exclusive). However these points are just as valid as the one in the article.
As I said earlier in the week, I don't envy Cameron having to make a decision on this. But at least he came up with a plan. Miliband kyboshed that plan and does not have an alternative.
Very good article, Mr. Herdson.
Name me a British prime minister who hasn't completely misjudged the mood of parliament at some time or other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_al-Assad
How many Turkish troops is Erdogan prepared to commit to the invasion of Syria?
He wants to do it with Western blood and treasure. They all do.
But the stench of moral hypocrisy on the part of those who voted against but now want to blame someone else for the result is sickening. MPs are supposed to be adults. One in particular aspires to be the next PM of this country. He must accept the consequences of his decision, the good and the bad. The damage to our relationship with the US, the reduction in the UK's standing in the world, our lack of influence on future developments since it has been decided we are not a player in the game. These are all real consequences of the votes that were cast.
If you strongly believe that the killing of conscript soldiers pretty much at random is simply morally abhorrent and unlikely to make anything better then you accept those consequences and rationalise that abstinence is the lesser evil. But blaming someone else for not succeeding when you voted against is pathetic. Just pathetic.
Cameron's plan was to bomb without compelling evidence of responsibility or a convincing explanation of what would happen next. The alternative plan is not to bomb without compelling evidence of responsibility or a convincing explanation of what would happen next.
PS. The plan _should_ be for developed countries to accept refugees, which is far more likely to help people than bombing, far less likely to backfire and end up causing harm, far more effective in helping people per pound spent and may even turn a profit.
When the dust settles, I wonder what will be the abiding memories?
Cameron: Keen, puppy-like to follow Obama, meaning well, but bodging up the logistics.
Clegg: Invisible
Milliband: Ditherer, happy to pontificate at length but no decision-making. And a child-like delight in making mischief.
I may be grossly unfair to Ed, as I have my preconceptions but I can imagine him as PM if we faced an Alien invasion.
"Ed, they've obliterated Cheltenham, what do we do?"
"I think we can all condemn such an act of barbarity. This shows the depths to which they may sink."
"Ed, they've circling over Bristol."
"The whole world will join together and act in unison. I think, we're better when we act as one, and I call upon the Martian Federation to realise the enormity of their folly."
Personally, I see Nick Clegg as a relative winner out of all this, if only because he didn't go as far backwards as others.
I wonder if dancing to the US tune is the real principle to have evaporated in the last few days.
Maybe people don;t mind intervening. They don;t want to intervene on America's terms.
And they don;t want to intervene with weak armed services.
"When the dust settles, I wonder what will be the abiding memories?"
One of the abiding memories will be that Miliband's tone and approach was cautious from the start, and Cameron and Clegg's was gung-ho. That will matter more than the recently furiously spun line of dithering.
They know all too well the effects of war. Assad's brother is rumoured to have lost a leg last year (at the time some even claimed he'd died). Someone (YOkel?) surmised that this might be one reason why they are fighting so strenuously and using chemical weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_al-Assad
Good point but it is one thing for an active participant in the fighting to feel the effects but totally another thing for their families or those who have been insulated.
Up until now however it has been quite easy for the govt side to order tanks and rockets against weaker enemy knowing that they have the upper hand. It is a different matter if they know that every time they use excessive force they will get clobbered by someone else.
It is like the school bully who is happy to pick on smaller guys who suddenly finds that someone bigger and harder knocks a few of his teeth out. The bully might carry on bullying and try and do it more subtly or the bully might realise it is not worth it and stop.
However, with all of the hardline Islamists and terrorist affiliates in the rebel forces, it's probably not in our interest to pursue this. Assad is the devil we know, and while bad, he has been the leader of Syria for a long time and had chemical weapons for a long time without using them against Israel, how can we be sure that the new guys will have the same policy...
Personally, I'd be delighted if Britain scaled back its foreign policy ambitions, but I don't think my view is representative of the British public on this front.
The price America has charged for its support is that Britain essentially remains a weak satellite country. In WWII they were relentless in crushing the last vestiges of empire.
The last thing the Americans want to see is Britain emerge as a independent well resourced regional power.
Southam Observer said
What I am saying is that in his rush to follow a US timetable for action the PM did not prepare close to adequately in terms of drafting a motion, thinking through the consequences of UK involvement or engaging with the government's own backbenches. He did not know how they would vote. And when it became apparent he did not have sufficient support his plea to them was not to the national interest, but to not play into Labour's hands. Miliband and Labour had made their position clear before Cameron went to the Commons on Thursday. But Cameron did not know what his own side thought. That is abysmal on every level. Obviously, it's easier to blame "disreputable" Miliband for Cameron's fiasco if you are a Tory loyalist and/or a convinced Labour hater, but that is just a fig leaf that will no-one who is not a loyalist/hater.
I am not claiming that this was a competent operation by No 10. But your description does not fit the facts. Cameron seems to have made at least 3 changes of position (a second motion, waiting for the weapons inspectors to confirm the obvious, a vote in the UN security council) probably more, to accomodate Miliband's concerns. He did not do this out of the goodness of his heart but because he believed that it is important that when this country sends people to war they do it on a united basis.
Cameron was obviously convinced that Labour would ultimately support the watered down motion he was proposing. Not having every minister back from holiday is evidence of this. Maybe he was just stupid or maybe he was misled. Whatever. The point I am making is that really is not the point. The point is MPs are responsible for their individual votes, Miliband included.
Whining about No 10's errors in failing to beat you is pathetic.
To that extent, Cameron was right in a sense to avoid talking endgame because the realistic endgame is 50,000 British troops stationed in Syria for the next 5-7 years. The air power would come from Britain, America and France as well. I don't see it being a NATO operation, too many objections from within.
Whining about No 10's errors in failing to beat you is pathetic.
If Cameron was convinced Labour would support the government motion when Miliband made it absolutely and unequivocally clear before Parliament reconvened that it would not then he should resign. But not even I believe he could have been that incompetent.
Turkey is under pressure in several ways.
Firstly, there is a refugee crisis on its borders. This is causing pressure on the local areas, and the situation is not helped by the FSA being present in some of the camps. Turkey has spent $700 million on the refugees, and until recently were giving them better-than-basic facilities (the Jordan refugees have to make do with tents). If you have a Syrian passport, you can temporarily settle anywhere in the country. (1)
Secondly, Turkey has at some time or another controlled most of the nations in the area. Any actions outside its borders will be viewed with suspicion by many. If they were to act, it would have to be with wide international support. The Ottoman Empire echoes just as strongly for Turkey and its international relations as the British Empire does for us.
Thirdly, there is a Kurdish angle. Anyone with knowledge of the PKK will know their aims, and why Turkey has been fighting them for years. There is a considerable Kurdish population in Syria, and they are rebelling. So Turkey ends up actively aiding the very people who have been supporting terrorism inside their country.
Fourthly, the government has problems with its own population; the discontent that flared up earlier in the year is far from dying down.
Fifthly, there is the religious angle. Turkey is predominately Sunni, and any intervention will be viewed by its neighbours on that basis. Another downside to Erdogan's steady demolition of secularism.
The situation is not sustainable in the middle-to-long term. Something will have to give.
I'm not sure that Turkey wants Western blood and treasure. What they would want is for any action to have legitimacy in the West, and they might need help. I don't envy them their position.
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_civil_war#August_2013
*playing world's smallest violin*
Typical of the chippy underdog garbage that fills your clouded mind .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Victoria_Crosses_by_school
Oh, and I see that you are a military expert now!
"No doubt daddy used to get them in as Generals aides or similar. They would be at the back quaffing champers as the plebs got machine gunned and blown to pieces at the front
That is such a clichéd bullshit and ignorant thing to write. All of my friends from the top public schools who joined the army have served on the front line exposed to every bit as much danger as the "plebs". They served and faced that same danger in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan and several have been very badly injured. They have also had to live with the trauma of leading their men out on patrols and coming back with dead colleagues and severely wounded men which always weighs heavily on their consciences as they feel responsible.
You only have to go to those schools and look at the war memorials from the Crimea to the world wars and up to present day conflicts to see that these guys fought and died on the front line - they were not deaths from misplaced champagne corks.
A couple of years ago winchester had a presentation to the 38 old boys who had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq up to that point. Would love to have seen you level such an accusation against them. Or perhaps the 500 old wykehamist who died in the First World War including over 20 brigadier generals.
You are an idiot.
In all your bombastic interventions, somehow the view of the British public is missing.
Maybe, you don't care. After all, you are a fancy blogger with a trillion hits, whereas they are just...people !
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS-qwVNCYAATFmm.jpg:large
This should be compared to Miliband's no-plan position.
No side comes well out of this week's events. And amazingly it has actually weakened the international position against Syria ...
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidWooding/status/373727632468111361/photo/1
You only have to go to those schools and look at the war memorials from the Crimea to the world wars and up to present day conflicts to see that these guys fought and died on the front line - they were not deaths from misplaced champagne corks.
A couple of years ago winchester had a presentation to the 38 old boys who had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq up to that point. Would love to have seen you level such an accusation against them. Or perhaps the 500 old wykehamist who died in the First World War including over 20 brigadier generals.
You are an idiot.
LOL, open another bottle of Bolly before you choke on your caviar
"I think there is still a complete air of unreality about so much of this debate. Were our 5 tomahawks really supposed to give the UK PM control or even much of a say on what the US President targetted? Were we supposed to be given control of the timing of the exercise on this basis?"
If all we've got are 5 tomahawks to deliver, Britains armed forces are in a very bad way.
Cameron may have lost 10 votes just because of that. Some were pissed off, some just angry ! Trouble is most were on his side.
I don't think Labour had envisaged they could win the vote. AS they ahd expected they lost their own amendment by miles.
Curiously, all the minor parties [ including the DUP ] voted against Cameron. They ahd very little party political arithmetic to worry about. I suppose they just represented their constituents views.
It's almost Shylockian
You only have to go to those schools and look at the war memorials from the Crimea to the world wars and up to present day conflicts to see that these guys fought and died on the front line - they were not deaths from misplaced champagne corks.
A couple of years ago winchester had a presentation to the 38 old boys who had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq up to that point. Would love to have seen you level such an accusation against them. Or perhaps the 500 old wykehamist who died in the First World War including over 20 brigadier generals.
You are an idiot.
-----------------------------------
What a pratt !
Don't think so. Perhaps you're thinking of some U.S. polling?
Wasn't their a poll in the Express?
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
Slashing defence spending against the backdrop of what is happening around the world looks like far and away the worst decision the coalition made since coming to power.
The party that wants us to have proper armed forces could reap an electoral dividend.
UKIP want spending boosted by 40%.
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
Ah yes, quite right. Now I remember. Vision Critical did that one, I think it's some new name for Angus Reid Isn't it?
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale
Rossendale and Darwen (shortlist: Will Straw vs Andy McNae)
East Dunbartonshire
Pendle long list
Azhar Ali (Lancashire Cllr, president of Pendle CLP, backed by Unite)
Malcolm Birks
Lesley Delves (from Southport)
Marcus Johnstone(Lancashire Cllr, from Burnley)
Jim King (Salford Cllr)
Chris McKimm (an ex soldier from Erby; stood in Barnoldswick Coates by-election last May)
Shortlisting tomorrow, selection on September 15th.
Even if we put some very generous error bars on the poll, I'd still say support was up somewhat.
Edit -- well, 25% then 8% then 25%.. so more like a yo-yo
You cannot reduce the Light Brigade from 600 to 450, and then tell them to charge the guns.
Cameron hasn't earned the right to mobilise Britain's armed forces.
People are also playing "arm-chair generals" by claiming we are going to be putting 'troops on the ground' (populated by divisions of the Durham Miners' Gala): Poppycock! What we will would be doing is deploying assets from afar; taking-out GBAD and C4 facilities and - generally - being a nasty bully to the junior son of some Marxist fool. Such is real-politik but there is no better solution available....
http://tinyurl.com/on6bhe9
None of the people mentioned seemed to have joined up. If you can give the numbers of Buller men who have served over the years, or won VCs, I would be genuinely interested.
Off topic but I've been contacted with a detailed questionnaire by my Tory MP. Anyone else? Wonder if it's a local or national thing. If the latter, that and stuff like the 'pay more tax under Labour' stunt that was out a few days ago suggests they're stepping up the voter detail harvesting.
1. Yes there is now a better balance in the power and role of the HoC.
2. Yes Cameron and Hague have suffered a serious blow.
3. Yes Obama and the USA will trust us less. But Obama was less friendly than most modern day Presidents.
4. It will however focus attention on getting the UN to tackle these isssues.
5. It may finally force Cameron to see the sense of having an able Chief Whip that he listens to.
6. It may force Cameron to have a single Party Chairman that he listens to.
As to Miliband, he has scored some points from his duplicitous behaviour. However his team know that he can be turned through threats of rebellion. As for trust, well if you are willing to lie to your mother over your intentions (bro Dave), then everyone should count their fingers any time Ed Miliband shakes your hand.