Amongst the thrashing around in this article, guess who also pops up...
Miliband likes to posture as a prophet of a new, ethical politics, but he has never looked more grubby than he did on Thursday: conspiring to thwart Cameron in order to distance himself from the memory of Tony Blair and Iraq. It goes to show how quickly politicians’ skin hardens and how low their horizons can fall. I had Miliband down as one of those who, seeing the images of Ghouta, would set party politics aside. But his raging desire to dissociate himself from Blair and his own elder brother was stronger than his desire to associate himself with a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons. In his desperation to maximise his chances of becoming prime minister, he showed precisely why he is not fit to occupy that role.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
How many others here have bought all 5 Tom Knox books ?
I think my favourites were Genesis Secret and Marks of Cain.
I don't know if that was because the ideas were stronger or because the pattern became increasingly familiar afterwards.
The ideas in the Deceit were fascinating and a very topical Egyptian setting but I thought the Cornish parts seemed forced and have to admit I skipped some of those chapters (didn't they turn out to be a poison affected dream ?).
Amongst the thrashing around in this article, guess who also pops up...
Miliband likes to posture as a prophet of a new, ethical politics, but he has never looked more grubby than he did on Thursday: conspiring to thwart Cameron in order to distance himself from the memory of Tony Blair and Iraq. It goes to show how quickly politicians’ skin hardens and how low their horizons can fall. I had Miliband down as one of those who, seeing the images of Ghouta, would set party politics aside. But his raging desire to dissociate himself from Blair and his own elder brother was stronger than his desire to associate himself with a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons. In his desperation to maximise his chances of becoming prime minister, he showed precisely why he is not fit to occupy that role.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
Parliament was supposed to be called to suit the American time-table.But America ain`t going to attack till September 9.So why did Cameron jump the gun and head for a humiliating defeat.There are questions to answer for the Tories.
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
I am sure that will also be Miliband's fault. In the meantime, more news of Al Qaeda's strength in Syria will emerge and I am not entirely sure that it will pass Congress.
But, not too worry ! Hollande is still there. He will come to your rescue. The man you guys mocked so much !
This Syrian affair is strange ! Morsi was anti Assad , so is Erdogan in Turkey. The new murderers in Cairo are pro Assad but their Saudi masters are anti Assad and supplying the rebels with all sorts of "materials".
If the name Tom Knox is to be retired or shelved, and Sean Thomas is not viable, I'm sure people will have plenty of suggestions, although I suppose it would depend on the genre. Something like Steve Rock, Jonathan Payne or, please, Hercules Rockafeller (tm the simpsons) might work in one genre but not another.
Amongst the thrashing around in this article, guess who also pops up...
Miliband likes to posture as a prophet of a new, ethical politics, but he has never looked more grubby than he did on Thursday: conspiring to thwart Cameron in order to distance himself from the memory of Tony Blair and Iraq. It goes to show how quickly politicians’ skin hardens and how low their horizons can fall. I had Miliband down as one of those who, seeing the images of Ghouta, would set party politics aside. But his raging desire to dissociate himself from Blair and his own elder brother was stronger than his desire to associate himself with a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons. In his desperation to maximise his chances of becoming prime minister, he showed precisely why he is not fit to occupy that role.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
Parliament was supposed to be called to suit the American time-table.But America ain`t going to attack till September 9.So why did Cameron jump the gun and head for a humiliating defeat.There are questions to answer for the Tories.
Amongst the thrashing around in this article, guess who also pops up...
Miliband likes to posture as a prophet of a new, ethical politics, but he has never looked more grubby than he did on Thursday: conspiring to thwart Cameron in order to distance himself from the memory of Tony Blair and Iraq. It goes to show how quickly politicians’ skin hardens and how low their horizons can fall. I had Miliband down as one of those who, seeing the images of Ghouta, would set party politics aside. But his raging desire to dissociate himself from Blair and his own elder brother was stronger than his desire to associate himself with a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons. In his desperation to maximise his chances of becoming prime minister, he showed precisely why he is not fit to occupy that role.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
Parliament was supposed to be called to suit the American time-table.But America ain`t going to attack till September 9.So why did Cameron jump the gun and head for a humiliating defeat.There are questions to answer for the Tories.
Has it occurred to you that Obama might have had to alter his timetable now that he has decided he has to get congressional support?
Amongst the thrashing around in this article, guess who also pops up...
Miliband likes to posture as a prophet of a new, ethical politics, but he has never looked more grubby than he did on Thursday: conspiring to thwart Cameron in order to distance himself from the memory of Tony Blair and Iraq. It goes to show how quickly politicians’ skin hardens and how low their horizons can fall. I had Miliband down as one of those who, seeing the images of Ghouta, would set party politics aside. But his raging desire to dissociate himself from Blair and his own elder brother was stronger than his desire to associate himself with a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons. In his desperation to maximise his chances of becoming prime minister, he showed precisely why he is not fit to occupy that role.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
Parliament was supposed to be called to suit the American time-table.But America ain`t going to attack till September 9.So why did Cameron jump the gun and head for a humiliating defeat.There are questions to answer for the Tories.
Has it occurred to you that Obama might have had to alter his timetable now that he has decided he has to get congressional support?
It's called cause and effect.
Doesn`t the fact that Obama changed his mind show there was no urgency to attack in the first place!Did it occur to Cameron to ask Obama why it was essential to attack by the weekend or are questions not allowed ` in the special relationship`?
We may not be able to say, as we once did about other places that Syria "is a far off country about which we know nothing". We do know what is happening but we don't care because our concerns are now parochial. We worry about our own communities and society and indeed many see those changing beyond recognition.
I don't agree with that. I think people do care, but have lost faith in 'our' ability to do anything for the long term good - rightly or wrongly. We have intervened in situations with degrees of success, but good news is no news - or at least less memorable, for a variety of reasons.
@stodge That's a interesting post. Don't agree, however, that "we know ... but we don't care ...". You've touched on some of the issues at work but there are others mingling with them. People do care, they just don't now see how military intervention can help.
But it is a very interesting communal response; a genuine shift in public perceptions.
My first chance to comment on the events of Thursday and the political fallout from the events in Parliament.
You know what, I'm not going to.
I'm more interested in the views of the public and why many people are now thinking the way we do. I believe the events of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the economic downturn, have created a new insularity. The world is now our street and our community and beyond that, we don't know and we don't want to know.
The recession forced us all to look inwards and attitudes to subjects like welfare and immigration reflect that new insularity. Some simply have to work hard to survive while others are much less secure about their economic circumstances. Insecurity breeds insularity - we may well sympathise with civilians gassed in their homes but that doesn't mean we want to do anything about it.
Instead, we want to turn away from the world, haul up the metaphorical drawbridge in the belief that we need to concentrate on solving our own problems. The world has caused us problems be it immigration or financial insecurity and we want as little to do with it as possible.
We may not be able to say, as we once did about other places that Syria "is a far off country about which we know nothing". We do know what is happening but we don't care because our concerns are now parochial. We worry about our own communities and society and indeed many see those changing beyond recognition.
I think the altered Obama timetable is also down to Hollandes belief that this must go through the Security Council for debate and decision-although a no or vetoed vote would not stop him,from participating. That needs time. the original plan seems to have been for a strike this week but Obama agreed to delay it so DC could hgave the second vote. thats all superfluos now of course but there seems little doubt that originally the Uk were being asked to come on board this week - hence the recall of Parliament. Incidentally i think Congress will Ok this as Obama is playing the Israel card.
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
Syria needs careful thought. All the brouhaha of the past 24 hrs, singularly ignored that. Democracies are inherently messy but they get you to the right place in the end. People needed to calm down and stop pointing fingers. At last they seem to be doing that. (Even if it means a slightly juvenile face saving "see we were right all along" or "this defeat is actually a victory")
The singular annoying thing for me over the past 48hrs is that neither leadership was prepared for a No vote situation. Which in a genuine democracy should have always been an outcome worth planning for.
But, not too worry ! Hollande is still there. He will come to your rescue. The man you guys mocked so much !".
Oh, we accept we were wrong about that. Somehow (and I still can't quite get my head around this extraordinary development), Ed Miliband has managed to make Hollande look like a mature world statesman.
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
Cameron would have lost the vote on the second debate by a lot larger margin.
Whether that would have been good or bad and better or worse for the various sides I don't know.
We may not be able to say, as we once did about other places that Syria "is a far off country about which we know nothing". We do know what is happening but we don't care because our concerns are now parochial. We worry about our own communities and society and indeed many see those changing beyond recognition.
I don't agree with that. I think people do care, but have lost faith in 'our' ability to do anything for the long term good - rightly or wrongly. We have intervened in situations with degrees of success, but good news is no news - or at least less memorable, for a variety of reasons.
For some that is what it is, but I think a substantial number are of the view that they don't care, or rather choose not to care about it because it is such a horrible, complex situation, and it is easier to think that world events are none of our concern unless they literally happen right on our doorstep. I don't agree with that view, even if I have been against intevention to date on Syria, but I think it is at least a significant minority view, although the fact that many opposing direct intervention are still clutching at straws that we can still be tough or influence things, shows that a lot do still care as they are looking for something to do, but as you say lost faith in what we can do.
As for Cameron, parliamentary defeat has left his position severely weakened and the decision to withdraw from the military action has infuriated senior British officers.
“It’s a sad position we are in now. This makes UK Plc pretty impotent across the board,” said one officer.
“This is the biggest shift in foreign policy in my lifetime. If the Americans think they are the world policeman, what are we? We think we might be a constable somewhere in Lower Shitting.”
Voters want Britain to share intelligence information about Syria (by 70% to 15%) & to support America at the United Nations (by 64% to 16%)
You mean we should offer our "judgement". We still seem to have a very elevated opinion of our own Intelligence. The buggers know nothing ! Remember , what Cameron said. Their sources were "open sources", i.e. they watched it on BBC news ! Some were more sophisticated. They saw it on Youtube.
Amongst the thrashing around in this article, guess who also pops up...
Miliband likes to posture as a prophet of a new, ethical politics, but he has never looked more grubby than he did on Thursday: conspiring to thwart Cameron in order to distance himself from the memory of Tony Blair and Iraq. It goes to show how quickly politicians’ skin hardens and how low their horizons can fall. I had Miliband down as one of those who, seeing the images of Ghouta, would set party politics aside. But his raging desire to dissociate himself from Blair and his own elder brother was stronger than his desire to associate himself with a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons. In his desperation to maximise his chances of becoming prime minister, he showed precisely why he is not fit to occupy that role.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
Parliament was supposed to be called to suit the American time-table.But America ain`t going to attack till September 9.So why did Cameron jump the gun and head for a humiliating defeat.There are questions to answer for the Tories.
Has it occurred to you that Obama might have had to alter his timetable now that he has decided he has to get congressional support?
It's called cause and effect.
Doesn`t the fact that Obama changed his mind show there was no urgency to attack in the first place!Did it occur to Cameron to ask Obama why it was essential to attack by the weekend or are questions not allowed ` in the special relationship`?
No it doesn't show there was no urgency. The urgency is still there; it is just that with no-plan Miliband mucking things up, Obama feels he needs to get more authority to act from within his country.
Voters want Britain to share intelligence information about Syria (by 70% to 15%) & to support America at the United Nations (by 64% to 16%)
You mean we should offer our "judgement". We still seem to have a very elevated opinion of our own Intelligence. The buggers know nothing ! Remember , what Cameron said. Their sources were "open sources", i.e. they watched it on BBC news ! Some were more sophisticated. They saw it on Youtube.
No, they're talking about our base on Cyprus, that is 100 miles away from Syria, has been a very useful intelligence gathering location
As for Cameron, parliamentary defeat has left his position severely weakened and the decision to withdraw from the military action has infuriated senior British officers.
“It’s a sad position we are in now. This makes UK Plc pretty impotent across the board,” said one officer.
“This is the biggest shift in foreign policy in my lifetime. If the Americans think they are the world policeman, what are we? We think we might be a constable somewhere in Lower Shitting.”
Well before we were the Sargent Major at best. Now we will be the messenger boys. Do we need a Trident replacement ?
We may not be able to say, as we once did about other places that Syria "is a far off country about which we know nothing". We do know what is happening but we don't care because our concerns are now parochial. We worry about our own communities and society and indeed many see those changing beyond recognition.
I don't agree with that. I think people do care, but have lost faith in 'our' ability to do anything for the long term good - rightly or wrongly. We have intervened in situations with degrees of success, but good news is no news - or at least less memorable, for a variety of reasons.
For some that is what it is, but I think a substantial number are of the view that they don't care, or rather choose not to care about it because it is such a horrible, complex situation, and it is easier to think that world events are none of our concern unless they literally happen right on our doorstep. I don't agree with that view, even if I have been against intevention to date on Syria, but I think it is at least a significant minority view, although the fact that many opposing direct intervention are still clutching at straws that we can still be tough or influence things, shows that a lot do still care as they are looking for something to do, but as you say lost faith in what we can do.
Yes some would complain about any outside involvement, no doubt - famine relief when we could be spending the money on potholes, whatever. And some will stick their heads in the sand. But I'd hope the vast majority would care about the scenes coming out of Syria and elsewhere. They just doubt our ability to sort it, agreed, and fear we'd make things worse.
Cameron would have lost the vote on the second debate by a lot larger margin.
Whether that would have been good or bad and better or worse for the various sides I don't know.
Would he? I wouldn't think so - normally the prospect of actual military action focuses minds.
There again, I might well be completely wrong. Nothing in 50 years of watching politics prepared me for Miliband's behaviour this week.
Nabavi, why are you so blind ? You have 364 MPs at you disposal. You only managed 282 votes and you blame Miliband ?
Perhaps it is possible, just possible, that people might think Cameron screwed up on his end, but that Miliband still behaved disgracefully? It doesn't have to be an either/or question or a case of willful blindness.
That said, personally I don't know that I buy the level of the anger at Ed M as being justified though, it does feel partly like displacement, at least in part, and of course relies on one side of the account of what went down.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
Parliament was supposed to be called to suit the American time-table.But America ain`t going to attack till September 9.So why did Cameron jump the gun and head for a humiliating defeat.There are questions to answer for the Tories.
Has it occurred to you that Obama might have had to alter his timetable now that he has decided he has to get congressional support?
It's called cause and effect.
Doesn`t the fact that Obama changed his mind show there was no urgency to attack in the first place!Did it occur to Cameron to ask Obama why it was essential to attack by the weekend or are questions not allowed ` in the special relationship`?
No it doesn't show there was no urgency. The urgency is still there; it is just that with no-plan Miliband mucking things up, Obama feels he needs to get more authority to act from within his country.
So, if Congress fails to support Obama, I guess that will be Miliband's fault too ?
Cameron would have lost the vote on the second debate by a lot larger margin.
Whether that would have been good or bad and better or worse for the various sides I don't know.
Would he? I wouldn't think so - normally the prospect of actual military action focuses minds.
There again, I might well be completely wrong. Nothing in 50 years of watching politics prepared me for Miliband's behaviour this week.
Well John Redwood has certainly said that there were many Conservatives abstaining and even voting for the motion in the safe knowledge that the second debate wasn't going to take place.
I believe Edward Leigh said something similar.
Its certainly possible that the prospect of actual military action would have focused minds.
But what those minds would have focused on is that actual military action is deeply unpopular.
And for all the political shenanigans which EdM may or may not have done they're a lot less bizarre than Cameron's attempt to go down a military path without a coherant goal, a proper strategy to achieve that goal and an inability to say what the consequences of this would be.
Now that may well be principally Obama's fault but Cameron has yet again showed himself unable or unwilling to deal with the details.
Watching the talking heads on Fox, Al Jazeera America and CNN this afternoon - and they've been on all the time - some detail is starting to emerge on Obama's announcement. It was a stunner.
We are told that the prez announced 2 decisions -
1. He has the authority to launch a surgical strike without congressional approval.
2. He wants congressional approval.
Congress won't be back in town until 9/9. Obama leaves for an overseas trip on Tuesday, The optics of having missiles rain down on Syria while he is in Russia with Putin would be difficult.
State Department folks have whispered to the news networks that while Obama wants congressional consent, he feels he has the authority to go ahead even if they don't support him. This is just nuts.
One interesting snippet reported on both CNN and Fox - in a meeting yesterday Obama asked the chairman of the joint chiefs if, after the strikes, Syria would still have functioning air defences and military communications, and whether the Syrian government would be able to continue fighting effectively. When told Yes, both networks quoted that Obama 'almost fell out of his chair'.
So one is left asking -what is the point of all this?
We may not be able to say, as we once did about other places that Syria "is a far off country about which we know nothing". We do know what is happening but we don't care because our concerns are now parochial. We worry about our own communities and society and indeed many see those changing beyond recognition.
For some that is what it is, but I think a substantial number are of the view that they don't care, or rather choose not to care about it because it is such a horrible, complex situation, and it is easier to think that world events are none of our concern unless they literally happen right on our doorstep. I don't agree with that view, even if I have been against intevention to date on Syria, but I think it is at least a significant minority view, although the fact that many opposing direct intervention are still clutching at straws that we can still be tough or influence things, shows that a lot do still care as they are looking for something to do, but as you say lost faith in what we can do.
Yes some would complain about any outside involvement, no doubt - famine relief when we could be spending the money on potholes, whatever. And some will stick their heads in the sand. But I'd hope the vast majority would care about the scenes coming out of Syria and elsewhere. They just doubt our ability to sort it, agreed, and fear we'd make things worse.
I would hope so too, but I don't think we can ignore that there is a strong current tone, at the least implicitly, from many in objection (of which I emphasize I was one) that does seem to indicate they don't care if it is none of our business, and deciding that world affairs of any kind are not our business (ignoring that world affairs are everyone's business, even if that doesn't mean they have to get involved).
I do think it is a minority, as you suggest, but I think it's significant and growing rapidly. It's a short step from thinking we have no ability to do something a lot of the time, to thinking we should never even consider it and painting that as some intrinsic moral law to justify it.
Amongst the thrashing around in this article, guess who also pops up...
Miliband likes to posture as a prophet of a new, ethical politics, but he has never looked more grubby than he did on Thursday: conspiring to thwart Cameron in order to distance himself from the memory of Tony Blair and Iraq. It goes to show how quickly politicians’ skin hardens and how low their horizons can fall. I had Miliband down as one of those who, seeing the images of Ghouta, would set party politics aside. But his raging desire to dissociate himself from Blair and his own elder brother was stronger than his desire to associate himself with a robust international response to the use of chemical weapons. In his desperation to maximise his chances of becoming prime minister, he showed precisely why he is not fit to occupy that role.
Embed the number 364 in your tiny brain , you scraoheap. That is the number of MPs of this government. And , you only managed to get 272 of them to vote for you.
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
Parliament was supposed to be called to suit the American time-table.But America ain`t going to attack till September 9.So why did Cameron jump the gun and head for a humiliating defeat.There are questions to answer for the Tories.
I suspect, if the vote had gone the other way, the attack would have been today. Obama wouldn't have felt the same pressure to allow Congress to vote (and the timetable was only announced today)
As for Cameron, parliamentary defeat has left his position severely weakened and the decision to withdraw from the military action has infuriated senior British officers.
“It’s a sad position we are in now. This makes UK Plc pretty impotent across the board,” said one officer.
“This is the biggest shift in foreign policy in my lifetime. If the Americans think they are the world policeman, what are we? We think we might be a constable somewhere in Lower Shitting.”
To be fair, America is also deluding itself if it believes it is still "the World's Policeman". It is no longer the world's biggest trader (that's China), or manufacturer (China) or creditor (China). China is also the world's biggest nation by population and is responsible for most of the world's economic growth, and China has vast forex reserves where America has debts.
America was indeed the world's policeman in 1945 when it constituted 50% of global GDP, and was the sole nuclear power. America is now about 21% of global GDP, and this fraction is going to fall further and faster in the future.
So America is in historic and irreversible decline just like Britain. They are merely declining from a higher position.
And China is going to the moon, we learned this week. However, the United States has ten aircraft carriers in service, which is as many as the rest of the world combined. Theirs are bigger, too, and have more and better planes. World policeman-wise, that counts for a lot.
Excuse me everyone while I print this out and frame it somewhere.
lol. You're welcome. I can do it in caps if you like
CORPOREAL IS CORRECT
It's interesting how the LDs are dividing on this. The sad bald pacifist wing is backing Miliband the babygasser. The Ashdown Wing is spitting hatred for Labour.
You could do an interesting post on how the LDs are the party most divided on war, in all ways.
That might be true, but it's still bad news for the Tories
Watching the talking heads on Fox, Al Jazeera America and CNN this afternoon - and they've been on all the time - some detail is starting to emerge on Obama's announcement. It was a stunner.
We are told that the prez announced 2 decisions -
1. He has the authority to launch a surgical strike without congressional approval.
2. He wants congressional approval.
Congress won't be back in town until 9/9. Obama leaves for an overseas trip on Tuesday, The optics of having missiles rain down on Syria while he is in Russia with Putin would be difficult.
State Department folks have whispered to the news networks that while Obama wants congressional consent, he feels he has the authority to go ahead even if they don't support him. This is just nuts.
One interesting snippet reported on both CNN and Fox - in a meeting yesterday Obama asked the chairman of the joint chiefs if, after the strikes, Syria would still have functioning air defences and military communications, and whether the Syrian government would be able to continue fighting effectively. When told Yes, both networks quoted that Obama 'almost fell out of his chair'.
So one is left asking -what is the point of all this?
It appears that Obama has started to realise that his `slap on Assad`s wrist` serves no purpose.Like Pontius Pilate he has washed his hands off this and wants to hide behind the Congress.I will be surprised if the attack goes ahead at all.
Cameron would have lost the vote on the second debate by a lot larger margin.
Whether that would have been good or bad and better or worse for the various sides I don't know.
Would he? I wouldn't think so - normally the prospect of actual military action focuses minds.
There again, I might well be completely wrong. Nothing in 50 years of watching politics prepared me for Miliband's behaviour this week.
Nabavi, why are you so blind ? You have 364 MPs at you disposal. You only managed 282 votes and you blame Miliband ?
Perhaps it is possible, just possible, that people might think Cameron screwed up on his end, but that Miliband still behaved disgracefully? It doesn't have to be an either/or question or a case of willful blindness.
That said, personally I don't know that I buy the level of the anger at Ed M as being justified though, it does feel partly like displacement, at least in part, and of course relies on one side of the account of what went down.
Even, in the Telegraph account, it says that No.10 "got the impression" that they had Labour's support. It is clear even from this Tory source taht Miliband had never actually promised anything. In any event, he took the draft resolution to the Shadow Cabinet and in 15 minutes they voted unanimously to oppose.
I also get the impression that Cameron does not do too much detail. He assumes rather a lot.
I am not sure why Hague has not resigned as yet. His belligerant comments as of Thursday mornings were such that it felt he would press the button himself. He has been humiliated as much as Cameron.
As for Cameron, parliamentary defeat has left his position severely weakened and the decision to withdraw from the military action has infuriated senior British officers.
“It’s a sad position we are in now. This makes UK Plc pretty impotent across the board,” said one officer.
“This is the biggest shift in foreign policy in my lifetime. If the Americans think they are the world policeman, what are we? We think we might be a constable somewhere in Lower Shitting.”
To be fair, America is also deluding itself if it believes it is still "the World's Policeman". It is no longer the world's biggest trader (that's China), or manufacturer (China) or creditor (China). China is also the world's biggest nation by population and is responsible for most of the world's economic growth, and China has vast forex reserves where America has debts.
America was indeed the world's policeman in 1945 when it constituted 50% of global GDP, and was the sole nuclear power. America is now about 21% of global GDP, and this fraction is going to fall further and faster in the future.
So America is in historic and irreversible decline just like Britain. They are merely declining from a higher position.
I think their massive defence budget, larger than the next 10 or so combined (which themselves are the greatest powers on the planet) are behind the global policeman image.
Yes, no nation remains a superpower forever, and the USA has enjoyed a fine run as a sole superpower, but as much as I agree with you that it will and is declining in sheer power given the rise of China and so on, I do think you tend to overstate how much the world should act as though it is already the case. Few would argue their share of global power is declining, and all nations should and no doubt are taking note of that, but in the here and now, we still have to all act according to the fact that they are still currently the only true superpower and that that fact will change in this century/half century, does not change our present situation and that currently they are able to be the world policeman (or at the least, are the only nation with the will and capacity to have the occasional police adventure mostly on their own muscle)
But, not too worry ! Hollande is still there. He will come to your rescue. The man you guys mocked so much !".
Oh, we accept we were wrong about that. Somehow (and I still can't quite get my head around this extraordinary development), Ed Miliband has managed to make Hollande look like a mature world statesman.
When I watched those horrible pictures of Miliband gassing those babies [ I was watching the same pictures watched by British Intelligence and forming my own judgement ], I couldn't help but notice that whereas there were lots of children and lots of men, there were very few women !
We may not be able to say, as we once did about other places that Syria "is a far off country about which we know nothing". We do know what is happening but we don't care because our concerns are now parochial. We worry about our own communities and society and indeed many see those changing beyond recognition.
For some that is what it is, but I think a substantial number are of the view that they don't care, or rather choose not to care about it because it is such a horrible, complex situation, and it is easier to think that world events are none of our concern unless they literally happen right on our doorstep. I don't agree with that view, even if I have been against intevention to date on Syria, but I think it is at least a significant minority view, although the fact that many opposing direct intervention are still clutching at straws that we can still be tough or influence things, shows that a lot do still care as they are looking for something to do, but as you say lost faith in what we can do.
I do think it is a minority, as you suggest, but I think it's significant and growing rapidly. It's a short step from thinking we have no ability to do something a lot of the time, to thinking we should never even consider it and painting that as some intrinsic moral law to justify it.
Well, a lot of people are a lot better informed these days. Maybe it's increasingly obvious that mankind is turning out to be a tad disappointing overall by making a massive clusterf*ck of the world. Might as well batten down the hatches and watch twatfactor.
Watching the talking heads on Fox, Al Jazeera America and CNN this afternoon - and they've been on all the time - some detail is starting to emerge on Obama's announcement. It was a stunner.
We are told that the prez announced 2 decisions -
1. He has the authority to launch a surgical strike without congressional approval.
2. He wants congressional approval.
Congress won't be back in town until 9/9. Obama leaves for an overseas trip on Tuesday, The optics of having missiles rain down on Syria while he is in Russia with Putin would be difficult.
State Department folks have whispered to the news networks that while Obama wants congressional consent, he feels he has the authority to go ahead even if they don't support him. This is just nuts.
One interesting snippet reported on both CNN and Fox - in a meeting yesterday Obama asked the chairman of the joint chiefs if, after the strikes, Syria would still have functioning air defences and military communications, and whether the Syrian government would be able to continue fighting effectively. When told Yes, both networks quoted that Obama 'almost fell out of his chair'.
So one is left asking -what is the point of all this?
The problem is that the Obama administration has been busy stopping everyone else from getting involved even if the US does not. He wants in, he wants out, he wants vocal international support but he doesn't want them to do this or that. His Mid East policy has basically hacked off most of the regional allies and led those who the US would consider opponents as thinking he's weak.
MPs have privately begun to voice concerns that their leader made a catastrophic mistake by engineering the defeat of the Government’s motion in the House of Commons on Thursday night.
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
Tessa Jowell on Sky admitted they thought the Government had it.
Been saying for the last couple of days that Ed Miliband had gambled on Cameron being able to deliver the vote without him. The Labour party are not going to want the triumphant way some of their MP's celebrated after the vote was announced repeated too often on the news in the coming weeks.
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
Tessa Jowell on Sky admitted they thought the Government had it.
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
Tessa Jowell on Sky admitted they thought the Government had it.
I guess it is Labour's fault that they had not realised that this Tory government could not organise a piss-up in a brewery ! PLus there were so amny including Ministers waiting to plunge the knife into Cameron at the earliest opportunity.
If the Prime Minister really believes this, and all the shouting from Number 10 is not intended to deflect blame from HMG, then Cameron surely will not, as has been reported, sack the Chief Whip or ministers who did not vote (perhaps they were locked in soundproof rooms).
And if the PM is not sacking anyone, that surely makes William Hague the one to bet on, as he may resign as a matter of honour.
Why, Hague is probable safer than ever before if he wants to stay in the position of Foreign Secretary after that Obama speech tonight? If anyone should resign, surely it should be the one politician whose word isn't worth the paper its written on, Ed Miliband. That decision is going to come back and bite him on the behookie one of these days at PMQ's in a Cameron put down.
If the Prime Minister really believes this, and all the shouting from Number 10 is not intended to deflect blame from HMG, then Cameron surely will not, as has been reported, sack the Chief Whip or ministers who did not vote (perhaps they were locked in soundproof rooms).
And if the PM is not sacking anyone, that surely makes William Hague the one to bet on, as he may resign as a matter of honour.
As someone who pays £15 a month for The Times access, I'm annoyed that they haven't paywalled all their articles, so the great unwashed can view them.
Yours
Outraged of Sheffield
I admitted defeat Saturday morning and signed up for the Telegraph so I can follow the links posted so frequently on pb. I wonder if Plato is on commission. £20 a year is perhaps better value than £15 a month, though.
One of the comments on Iain Dale's blog recalls a letter to The Times complaining that it devalued the honours system to have created Sir Geoff Hurst, as henceforth every Englishman scoring a hat trick in the World Cup Final would expect a knighthood.
Surby, you are angrier than a swarm of midges tonight. Fear not, I suspect that like some senior Labour politicians tonight, there will also be a few of the usual Tory suspects as pi**ed off at the way Cameron's Commons defeat has unravelled over the last 48 hours. Neither they or Ed Miliband covered themselves in glory, and it must be galling to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
One thought (I haven't had time to read all the comments today, so apologies if this point has already been made):
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
Tessa Jowell on Sky admitted they thought the Government had it.
I guess it is Labour's fault that they had not realised that this Tory government could not organise a piss-up in a brewery ! PLus there were so amny including Ministers waiting to plunge the knife into Cameron at the earliest opportunity.
Fitlass.....don't move away from the agreed line, Camerons loss on Thursday was a disguised out and out victory and was a disaster for Miliband. Have you not read the article and quotes from Lord Ashcroft, The Telegraph,Fraser Neson, The Mail, Dan Hodges, The Sun, Benedict Brogan, The Express,The Spectator and other independent minded press folk?
"We make out of the quarrel with others, rhetoric, but of the quarrel with ourselves, poetry"
Which is brilliant and deathless and was, I believe, something Yeats just tossed off in an essay. Then it gives some examples of Heaney's finest verse, e.g.:
“Two buckets were easier carried than one. I grew up in between.”
and this:
"Youngsters shouting their heads off in a field As the light died and they kept on playing Because by then they were playing in their heads.."
Oh dear.
Heaney deserves ten Nobel Prizes for making Beowulf readable.
"The soldiers and strategic gurus whom I respect believe that Britain pays a disproportionately high price for its efforts to hang in there alongside the U.S. on the battlefield. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan: the big American books about those campaigns devote just a page or two to the British role.
Second, it is hopeless to expect thank-yous for our support. Dear, kind old President Ronald Reagan attempted to shaft Mrs Thatcher during the Falklands War by forcing a ceasefire to save the Argentines from defeat. "
"What many MPs will be asking today is why neither he nor the foreign secretary, William Hague, were able to make the kind of "clear and compelling case" that Kerry made for US military action. Why, if UK relations with Washington were so close, and the UK had known it was facing a crucial parliamentary vote, was Cameron not given access to new, higher casualty figures from US intelligence, cited by Kerry? British official figures used by the government had the number of Syrians who had died at 350 while Kerry said on Friday the figure was 1,429, including 350 children."
"Britain has stepped through the looking glass into a weird and distorting new world, and one from which I fear she will never step back. By refusing to punish a foreign dictator for his despicable use of poison gas on unarmed civilians, we have deliberately relinquished our once-cherished role as one of the world’s foremost moral policemen, and joined the ranks of global spectators, merely tut-tutting from the sidelines rather than taking an active part in defending decency. A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness. The Britain we have lost is the one that took its historic responsibilities as a former Great Power seriously and sought to enforce international agreements, such as those banning the use of chemical weapons."
"27 June 1969: It’s impossible to fault Seamus Heaney's clean language and sensuous delight In 1969, the poet Anthony Thwaite reviewed Seamus Heaney's collection Door into the Dark, alongside other newly-published works, under the heading "Country Matters". He found Heaney's poems to be without peer, but also strangely exotic in their appeal."
"Britain has stepped through the looking glass into a weird and distorting new world, and one from which I fear she will never step back. By refusing to punish a foreign dictator for his despicable use of poison gas on unarmed civilians, we have deliberately relinquished our once-cherished role as one of the world’s foremost moral policemen, and joined the ranks of global spectators, merely tut-tutting from the sidelines rather than taking an active part in defending decency. A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness. The Britain we have lost is the one that took its historic responsibilities as a former Great Power seriously and sought to enforce international agreements, such as those banning the use of chemical weapons."
'What buffoonery. That horse bolted a quarter of a century ago, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons with the full knowledge of the US.'
So that makes it OK now?
The thought here is that American bombing can create a credible deterrent to future use of chemical weapons. The problem is that for the deterrent to be credible, people have to believe that they will do it in future if other regimes use chemical weapons, and that they won't do it if they don't use chemical weapons.
I don't think either of these things are credible. If Israel or the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons nobody believes the US would bomb them. And since the US is already arming the rebels, Assad could be forgiven for thinking that they'll just come up with another pretext for bombing later.
If they want a credible deterrent to chemical weapon use, they need to set up an independent body to hear the evidence and make the decisions about who deserves to be bombed. (Or follow the closest thing we have, which is the UN Security Council.) Obviously the US won't do either of those things, because this is not mainly about chemical weapons.
Ah I see - quoting Hodges, Nelson, Telegraph etc is Tory spin but quoting the Independent is "proof":)))
Rather like a tree falling in the forest - if nobody quotes from the Independent at least once a week then we're just going to assume it has shut down and nobody has noticed.
Latest YouGov / The Sunday Times results 31 August - Con 31%, Lab 41%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%
A couple more points in that direction, plus Ed and Dave switching places in the leadership ratings, and MPs are going to start thinking about sending in letters to the chairman of the 1992 committee.
EiT: you make the same mistake others make: that the only deterrent to the future use of chemical weapons is bombing.
There is another big stick in our arsenal - diplomacy. If most countries were to launch a chemical weapons attack within their own borders, we have various diplomatic weapons in our arsenal. We can stop trade deals. We can stop direct governmental aid. There are other ways of hurting them without a single missile being fired.
Even, in extremis, sanctions.
None of these exist in Syria, where the government is facing an existential crisis. Many diplomatic methods have already been tried, and the chances of further use of chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war is high and potentially imminent. Therefore there is a pressing need both to deter from further use, and to prevent other regimes from thinking they now have a green light for their use.
An independent body would by necessity take months, if not years, to report, by which time many more uses would have occurred. The only way for this to work would be for it to be an international court that carried a big stick against those it found guilty - not just a toothless fact-finding mission. Besides, no such effective body exists. The US should sign up for the ICC immediately, and agree to be bound by it.
As I have said passim: it needs to be clear that the consequences of using chemical weapons are far greater than the tactical gains that can be made from using them. That can be done by diplomatic, monetary or military means, but it needs to be highly visible to the international community. The pain has to be public.
This is all about the use of chemical weapons - read the Independent report below, or ones in the Times etcetera. The revulsion at the use of such weapons is extreme, at least amongst those of us who care.
Do you think each of the following parties is united or divided? Conservatives United:9(C0ns:12) Mainly united but differences on some issues: 50 (Cons:77) Divided on a wide range of issues: 31 (Cons: 7) DK: 14 (Cons:5)
Labour United: 9(LAB:21) Mainly: 44(Lab:60) Divided: 31(Lab:13) DK:16(7)
EiT: you make the same mistake others make: that the only deterrent to the future use of chemical weapons is bombing.
There is another big stick in our arsenal - diplomacy. If most countries were to launch a chemical weapons attack within their own borders, we have various diplomatic weapons in our arsenal. We can stop trade deals. We can stop direct governmental aid. There are other ways of hurting them without a single missile being fired.
Even, in extremis, sanctions.
None of these exist in Syria, where the government is facing an existential crisis. Many diplomatic methods have already been tried, and the chances of further use of chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war is high and potentially imminent. Therefore there is a pressing need both to deter from further use, and to prevent other regimes from thinking they now have a green light for their use.
An independent body would by necessity take months, if not years, to report, by which time many more uses would have occurred. The only way for this to work would be for it to be an international court that carried a big stick against those it found guilty - not just a toothless fact-finding mission. Besides, no such effective body exists. The US should sign up for the ICC immediately, and agree to be bound by it.
As I have said passim: it needs to be clear that the consequences of using chemical weapons are far greater than the tactical gains that can be made from using them. That can be done by diplomatic, monetary or military means, but it needs to be highly visible to the international community. The pain has to be public.
This is all about the use of chemical weapons - read the Independent report below, or ones in the Times etcetera. The revulsion at the use of such weapons is extreme, at least amongst those of us who care.
From what you have seen or heard, do you think the main party leaders have or have not shown strong leadership over the issue of British involvement in Syria? David Cameron Has:39 (Cons: 74) Has not:41(19) DK: 20
EdM: Has;28 (Lab:52) Has not:46 (30) DK:26
NC: Has:10 (LD:28) Has not: 53 (32) DK:36
And do you think Parliament itself has performed well or badly over the issue of Syria? Well:58 Badly:27
EiT: you make the same mistake others make: that the only deterrent to the future use of chemical weapons is bombing.
There is another big stick in our arsenal - diplomacy. If most countries were to launch a chemical weapons attack within their own borders, we have various diplomatic weapons in our arsenal. We can stop trade deals. We can stop direct governmental aid. There are other ways of hurting them without a single missile being fired.
Even, in extremis, sanctions.
None of these exist in Syria, where the government is facing an existential crisis. Many diplomatic methods have already been tried, and the chances of further use of chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war is high and potentially imminent. Therefore there is a pressing need both to deter from further use, and to prevent other regimes from thinking they now have a green light for their use.
An independent body would by necessity take months, if not years, to report, by which time many more uses would have occurred. The only way for this to work would be for it to be an international court that carried a big stick against those it found guilty - not just a toothless fact-finding mission. Besides, no such effective body exists. The US should sign up for the ICC immediately, and agree to be bound by it.
As I have said passim: it needs to be clear that the consequences of using chemical weapons are far greater than the tactical gains that can be made from using them. That can be done by diplomatic, monetary or military means, but it needs to be highly visible to the international community. The pain has to be public.
This is all about the use of chemical weapons - read the Independent report below, or ones in the Times etcetera. The revulsion at the use of such weapons is extreme, at least amongst those of us who care.
Who doesn't care?
I would suggest those who have been belittling the use of chemical weapons ("Oh, there's no difference between them and conventional munitions") show either a distinct lack of care about their use, or a dangerous lack of knowledge.
@MSmithsonPB: YouGov changes compared with last poll take pre-Syrian vote CON -2, 31 LAB +4, 41 LD -1, 9 UKIP +1, 13
It might be a good day to remember the PB Tory motto
"The PB Tories are always wrong, the PB Tories never learn"
Looks like an outlier to me. But, along with the Survation poll, it does indicate the Tory tactic of attacking Labour in order to divert from the government's total failure to convince Parliament and the British people of its case is having limited success.
I would suggest those who have been belittling the use of chemical weapons ("Oh, there's no difference between them and conventional munitions") show either a distinct lack of care about their use, or a dangerous lack of knowledge.
What I'm saying, picking up on somebody up-thread who was wondering the US's actions on Iraq are relevant, is that the obvious lack of consistency on the part of the US in applying the alleged standard about chemical (or nuclear) weapons: 1) Shows that chemical weapons are not really the US's primary motivating factor, even though they and nuclear weapons are often used to claim justification for military action. 2) Makes the claimed effect less likely to work, because even if the retaliation was effective against the target (which isn't clear here - it may well either be insufficient or backfire) they won't believe that showing restraint is sufficient to avoid being attacked.
" ...Respondents were shown a list of nine suggested measures to cut immigration, such as setting a numerical cap and cracking down on bogus students. Each policy was supported by clear majorities but, in each case, only a minority realised the measure was already government policy.
In another striking finding, 79% of respondents supported the message on the Home Office’s “Go home or face arrest” advertising vans aimed at illegal immigrants. However, just 17% thought the policy would work. In his report, to be released tomorrow, Ashcroft says the findings on the vans underline “the gap” between “elite and public opinion on immigration”.
Writing in today’s Sunday Times, the peer says: “Whatever people’s view of immigration itself, few think any recent government has had any real grasp of it, or that any of the parties does today.” http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/article1308078.ece
I would suggest those who have been belittling the use of chemical weapons ("Oh, there's no difference between them and conventional munitions") show either a distinct lack of care about their use, or a dangerous lack of knowledge.
What I'm saying, picking up on somebody up-thread who was wondering the US's actions on Iraq are relevant, is that the obvious lack of consistency on the part of the US in applying the alleged standard about chemical (or nuclear) weapons: 1) Shows that chemical weapons are not really the US's primary motivating factor, even though they and nuclear weapons are often used to claim justification for military action. 2) Makes the claimed effect less likely to work, because even if the retaliation was effective against the target (which isn't clear here - it may well either be insufficient or backfire) they won't believe that showing restraint is sufficient to avoid being attacked.
It shows neither of those things IMHO. And the standard about chemical weapons (i.e. treaties) are hardly alleged - they are very real.
Even if it did, and *if* the west has shown a disregard for the use of chemical weapons in the past, then surely it is as good an opportunity as any to start regarding their use now, after one of the worst cases of their use for decades?
The antis are just like Miliband - they have no plan. Diplomacy has not worked for two years, and in the meantime people continue to die. The use of chemical weapons should be abhorrent to everyone. Instead, what we have had on here are people saying their use is not serious, that conventional munitions are just as bad. Which is patently ridiculous.
*That* is the dangerous attitude, and it can only be harmful in the long run.
The alternative is to rip up all the treaties, and not bother negotiating any further arms limitations strategies. Or develop an international court with teeth. But we don't have the latter, are unlikely to get it, it will be too late for Syria anyway, and in some cases would probably have to resort to military strikes anyway.
EiT: you make the same mistake others make: that the only deterrent to the future use of chemical weapons is bombing.
There is another big stick in our arsenal - diplomacy. If most countries were to launch a chemical weapons attack within their own borders, we have various diplomatic weapons in our arsenal. We can stop trade deals. We can stop direct governmental aid. There are other ways of hurting them without a single missile being fired.
Even, in extremis, sanctions.
None of these exist in Syria, where the government is facing an existential crisis. Many diplomatic methods have already been tried, and the chances of further use of chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war is high and potentially imminent. Therefore there is a pressing need both to deter from further use, and to prevent other regimes from thinking they now have a green light for their use.
An independent body would by necessity take months, if not years, to report, by which time many more uses would have occurred. The only way for this to work would be for it to be an international court that carried a big stick against those it found guilty - not just a toothless fact-finding mission. Besides, no such effective body exists. The US should sign up for the ICC immediately, and agree to be bound by it.
As I have said passim: it needs to be clear that the consequences of using chemical weapons are far greater than the tactical gains that can be made from using them. That can be done by diplomatic, monetary or military means, but it needs to be highly visible to the international community. The pain has to be public.
This is all about the use of chemical weapons - read the Independent report below, or ones in the Times etcetera. The revulsion at the use of such weapons is extreme, at least amongst those of us who care.
Who doesn't care?
I would suggest those who have been belittling the use of chemical weapons ("Oh, there's no difference between them and conventional munitions") show either a distinct lack of care about their use, or a dangerous lack of knowledge.
It shows neither of those things IMHO. And the standard about chemical weapons (i.e. treaties) are hardly alleged - they are very real.
Even if it did, and *if* the west has shown a disregard for the use of chemical weapons in the past, then surely it is as good an opportunity as any to start regarding their use now, after one of the worst cases of their use for decades?
That might be worthwhile if there was any possibility they'd actually do it, but everybody knows they won't. They wouldn't retaliate on against the Syrian rebels if it turned out to be them, or against the Israelis, or against themselves if they ever have their backs to the wall. The proposal is always to set up a new rule of law, starting now, ignoring the past, that's going to be effective from now on. It lasts until it's in the interests of the US to break it.
Why do they do this? Because their the stated concern, which is always humanitarian, is designed to be more popular than the real main concern, which is geo-political.
The antis are just like Miliband - they have no plan. Diplomacy has not worked for two years, and in the meantime people continue to die. The use of chemical weapons should be abhorrent to everyone. Instead, what we have had on here are people saying their use is not serious, that conventional munitions are just as bad. Which is patently ridiculous.
*That* is the dangerous attitude, and it can only be harmful in the long run.
I have a plan, which I've mentioned here, which would be vastly more effective in helping civilians, far more cost effective per person helped, and far less likely to backfire. Developed countries should accept refugees. The fact that they won't shows that their concern is not primarily humanitarian.
Comments
Didn't you say you weren't writing any more thrillers ?
Or is this a different type of thriller ?
I was greatly offended and hurt by your comment last night that my approach to Syria was influenced by the wise woman of Putney of Blackadder fame.
I'll have you know, my thinking in Syria has been influenced by Doctor Strangelove
And, you are blaming others ? Your organisation is so pathetic !!
What Labour seem to have been expecting and hoping for, is that the government motion passed by a small majority, despite Labour's opposition. Through a combination of Tory rebels (and LD rebels), and possibly a foul-up on the whipping, it ended up losing by a small margin.
It was a very lucky escape for Cameron, and the country: the only thing worse than a narrow defeat would have been a narrow victory committing him to a course leading to war without clear cross-party support.
Meanwhile, Obama seems to be having cold feet.
I think my favourites were Genesis Secret and Marks of Cain.
I don't know if that was because the ideas were stronger or because the pattern became increasingly familiar afterwards.
The ideas in the Deceit were fascinating and a very topical Egyptian setting but I thought the Cornish parts seemed forced and have to admit I skipped some of those chapters (didn't they turn out to be a poison affected dream ?).
But, not too worry ! Hollande is still there. He will come to your rescue. The man you guys mocked so much !
This Syrian affair is strange ! Morsi was anti Assad , so is Erdogan in Turkey. The new murderers in Cairo are pro Assad but their Saudi masters are anti Assad and supplying the rebels with all sorts of "materials".
It's called cause and effect.
But it is a very interesting communal response; a genuine shift in public perceptions.
The singular annoying thing for me over the past 48hrs is that neither leadership was prepared for a No vote situation. Which in a genuine democracy should have always been an outcome worth planning for.
(68% against 16%) thinks parliament took the right decision
Whether that would have been good or bad and better or worse for the various sides I don't know.
There again, I might well be completely wrong. Nothing in 50 years of watching politics prepared me for Miliband's behaviour this week.
As for Cameron, parliamentary defeat has left his position severely weakened and the decision to withdraw from the military action has infuriated senior British officers.
“It’s a sad position we are in now. This makes UK Plc pretty impotent across the board,” said one officer.
“This is the biggest shift in foreign policy in my lifetime. If the Americans think they are the world policeman, what are we? We think we might be a constable somewhere in Lower Shitting.”
they watched it on BBC news ! Some were more sophisticated. They saw it on Youtube.
That said, personally I don't know that I buy the level of the anger at Ed M as being justified though, it does feel partly like displacement, at least in part, and of course relies on one side of the account of what went down.
'We think we might be a constable somewhere in Lower Shitting'. Lol.
I believe Edward Leigh said something similar.
Its certainly possible that the prospect of actual military action would have focused minds.
But what those minds would have focused on is that actual military action is deeply unpopular.
And for all the political shenanigans which EdM may or may not have done they're a lot less bizarre than Cameron's attempt to go down a military path without a coherant goal, a proper strategy to achieve that goal and an inability to say what the consequences of this would be.
Now that may well be principally Obama's fault but Cameron has yet again showed himself unable or unwilling to deal with the details.
We are told that the prez announced 2 decisions -
1. He has the authority to launch a surgical strike without congressional approval.
2. He wants congressional approval.
Congress won't be back in town until 9/9. Obama leaves for an overseas trip on Tuesday, The optics of having missiles rain down on Syria while he is in Russia with Putin would be difficult.
State Department folks have whispered to the news networks that while Obama wants congressional consent, he feels he has the authority to go ahead even if they don't support him. This is just nuts.
One interesting snippet reported on both CNN and Fox - in a meeting yesterday Obama asked the chairman of the joint chiefs if, after the strikes, Syria would still have functioning air defences and military communications, and whether the Syrian government would be able to continue fighting effectively. When told Yes, both networks quoted that Obama 'almost fell out of his chair'.
So one is left asking -what is the point of all this?
I do think it is a minority, as you suggest, but I think it's significant and growing rapidly. It's a short step from thinking we have no ability to do something a lot of the time, to thinking we should never even consider it and painting that as some intrinsic moral law to justify it.
I also get the impression that Cameron does not do too much detail. He assumes rather a lot.
I am not sure why Hague has not resigned as yet. His belligerant comments as of Thursday mornings were such that it felt he would press the button himself. He has been humiliated as much as Cameron.
Yes, no nation remains a superpower forever, and the USA has enjoyed a fine run as a sole superpower, but as much as I agree with you that it will and is declining in sheer power given the rise of China and so on, I do think you tend to overstate how much the world should act as though it is already the case. Few would argue their share of global power is declining, and all nations should and no doubt are taking note of that, but in the here and now, we still have to all act according to the fact that they are still currently the only true superpower and that that fact will change in this century/half century, does not change our present situation and that currently they are able to be the world policeman (or at the least, are the only nation with the will and capacity to have the occasional police adventure mostly on their own muscle)
When I watched those horrible pictures of Miliband gassing those babies [ I was watching the same pictures watched by British Intelligence and forming my own judgement ], I couldn't help but notice that whereas there were lots of children and lots of men, there were very few women !
Great success.
plenty of others to choose from....
Heres one .... annointing that loon G Brown PM
Here it is again with the correct link.
Telegraph - Syrian crisis: Ed Miliband faces growing criticism from Labour ranks
I didn't want to shock the innocent
Book burning based on content is usually a terrible thing but occasionally exceptions need to be made.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/article1307359.ece
Yours
Outraged of Sheffield
If the Prime Minister really believes this, and all the shouting from Number 10 is not intended to deflect blame from HMG, then Cameron surely will not, as has been reported, sack the Chief Whip or ministers who did not vote (perhaps they were locked in soundproof rooms).
And if the PM is not sacking anyone, that surely makes William Hague the one to bet on, as he may resign as a matter of honour.
If.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-labour-derailed-the-pms-syria-plan-8792974.html
One of the comments on Iain Dale's blog recalls a letter to The Times complaining that it devalued the honours system to have created Sir Geoff Hurst, as henceforth every Englishman scoring a hat trick in the World Cup Final would expect a knighthood.
"The soldiers and strategic gurus whom I respect believe that Britain pays a disproportionately high price for its efforts to hang in there alongside the U.S. on the battlefield. Few ordinary Americans have even noticed our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan: the big American books about those campaigns devote just a page or two to the British role.
Second, it is hopeless to expect thank-yous for our support. Dear, kind old President Ronald Reagan attempted to shaft Mrs Thatcher during the Falklands War by forcing a ceasefire to save the Argentines from defeat. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2407552/Syria-vote-A-disaster-No-high-time-Britain-stopped-Uncle-Sams-poodle.html#ixzz2daqJKIyT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/01/how-cameron-lost-battle-syria-vote
"What many MPs will be asking today is why neither he nor the foreign secretary, William Hague, were able to make the kind of "clear and compelling case" that Kerry made for US military action. Why, if UK relations with Washington were so close, and the UK had known it was facing a crucial parliamentary vote, was Cameron not given access to new, higher casualty figures from US intelligence, cited by Kerry? British official figures used by the government had the number of Syrians who had died at 350 while Kerry said on Friday the figure was 1,429, including 350 children."
------------------
Worth reading both articles.
"
A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness.
The Britain we have lost is the one that took its historic responsibilities as a former Great Power seriously and sought to enforce international agreements, such as those banning the use of chemical weapons."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2408040/ANDREW-ROBERTS-Hideously-amoral-Little-England-stepped-looking-glass.html
In 1969, the poet Anthony Thwaite reviewed Seamus Heaney's collection Door into the Dark, alongside other newly-published works, under the heading "Country Matters". He found Heaney's poems to be without peer, but also strangely exotic in their appeal."
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2013/08/27-june-1969-its-impossible-fault-seamus-heaneys-clean-language-and-sensuous-delight
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/abbott-backs-us-action-against-syria/story-e6frfku9-1226708432411
Some of the latest polls suggest Abbott could be heading for one of the biggest landslides in Australian history next week.
'What buffoonery. That horse bolted a quarter of a century ago, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons with the full knowledge of the US.'
So that makes it OK now?
I don't think either of these things are credible. If Israel or the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons nobody believes the US would bomb them. And since the US is already arming the rebels, Assad could be forgiven for thinking that they'll just come up with another pretext for bombing later.
If they want a credible deterrent to chemical weapon use, they need to set up an independent body to hear the evidence and make the decisions about who deserves to be bombed. (Or follow the closest thing we have, which is the UN Security Council.) Obviously the US won't do either of those things, because this is not mainly about chemical weapons.
There is another big stick in our arsenal - diplomacy. If most countries were to launch a chemical weapons attack within their own borders, we have various diplomatic weapons in our arsenal. We can stop trade deals. We can stop direct governmental aid. There are other ways of hurting them without a single missile being fired.
Even, in extremis, sanctions.
None of these exist in Syria, where the government is facing an existential crisis. Many diplomatic methods have already been tried, and the chances of further use of chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war is high and potentially imminent. Therefore there is a pressing need both to deter from further use, and to prevent other regimes from thinking they now have a green light for their use.
An independent body would by necessity take months, if not years, to report, by which time many more uses would have occurred. The only way for this to work would be for it to be an international court that carried a big stick against those it found guilty - not just a toothless fact-finding mission. Besides, no such effective body exists. The US should sign up for the ICC immediately, and agree to be bound by it.
As I have said passim: it needs to be clear that the consequences of using chemical weapons are far greater than the tactical gains that can be made from using them. That can be done by diplomatic, monetary or military means, but it needs to be highly visible to the international community. The pain has to be public.
This is all about the use of chemical weapons - read the Independent report below, or ones in the Times etcetera. The revulsion at the use of such weapons is extreme, at least amongst those of us who care.
App: -29(-3)
Well/badly:
DC: -19(-1)
EdM: -39(+9)
NC: -47(+6)
Coalition: -20(+3)
Good/Bad
Economy: -43(+4)
Do you think each of the following parties is united or
divided?
Conservatives
United:9(C0ns:12)
Mainly united but differences on some issues: 50 (Cons:77)
Divided on a wide range of issues: 31 (Cons: 7)
DK: 14 (Cons:5)
Labour
United: 9(LAB:21)
Mainly: 44(Lab:60)
Divided: 31(Lab:13)
DK:16(7)
LD
United: 5 (LD;20)
Mainly: 35 (52)
Divided; 41(16)
DK: 18 (11)
UKIP
United:24(UKIP:49)
Mainly:24;(40)
Divided:14(2)
DK:47(9)
From what you have seen or heard, do you think the
main party leaders have or have not shown strong
leadership over the issue of British involvement in
Syria?
David Cameron
Has:39 (Cons: 74)
Has not:41(19)
DK: 20
EdM:
Has;28 (Lab:52)
Has not:46 (30)
DK:26
NC:
Has:10 (LD:28)
Has not: 53 (32)
DK:36
And do you think Parliament itself has performed well or
badly over the issue of Syria?
Well:58
Badly:27
1) Shows that chemical weapons are not really the US's primary motivating factor, even though they and nuclear weapons are often used to claim justification for military action.
2) Makes the claimed effect less likely to work, because even if the retaliation was effective against the target (which isn't clear here - it may well either be insufficient or backfire) they won't believe that showing restraint is sufficient to avoid being attacked.
In another striking finding, 79% of respondents supported the message on the Home Office’s “Go home or face arrest” advertising vans aimed at illegal immigrants. However, just 17% thought the policy would work. In his report, to be released tomorrow, Ashcroft says the findings on the vans underline “the gap” between “elite and public opinion on immigration”.
Writing in today’s Sunday Times, the peer says: “Whatever people’s view of immigration itself, few think any recent government has had any real grasp of it, or that any of the parties does today.” http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/article1308078.ece
MoS article provides some extra ‘analysis’ and pretty graphs on the poll. – surprising results, all things considered and somewhat counter intuitive.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408150/Cameron-best-statesman-according-poll-attitudes-British-politicians-responses-Syria-crisis.html
Even if it did, and *if* the west has shown a disregard for the use of chemical weapons in the past, then surely it is as good an opportunity as any to start regarding their use now, after one of the worst cases of their use for decades?
The antis are just like Miliband - they have no plan. Diplomacy has not worked for two years, and in the meantime people continue to die. The use of chemical weapons should be abhorrent to everyone. Instead, what we have had on here are people saying their use is not serious, that conventional munitions are just as bad. Which is patently ridiculous.
*That* is the dangerous attitude, and it can only be harmful in the long run.
The alternative is to rip up all the treaties, and not bother negotiating any further arms limitations strategies. Or develop an international court with teeth. But we don't have the latter, are unlikely to get it, it will be too late for Syria anyway, and in some cases would probably have to resort to military strikes anyway.
Why do they do this? Because their the stated concern, which is always humanitarian, is designed to be more popular than the real main concern, which is geo-political. I have a plan, which I've mentioned here, which would be vastly more effective in helping civilians, far more cost effective per person helped, and far less likely to backfire. Developed countries should accept refugees. The fact that they won't shows that their concern is not primarily humanitarian.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2408071/PETER-HITCHENS-David-Cameron-vainglorious-fantasist-He-quit.html