Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
Fatcha!!!!!
The West's support for Saddam was not out of love of the old Iraqi bastard, but because he wasn't an Iranian bastard. The notion of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" did not have its finest hour in the 1980s. But people forget just how worrying the new Iranian theocracy was after the fall of the Shah. Complete with paraded US hostages.
Saddam's use of chemical weapons - on his own people - was as inexcusable as that of the Syrians today. And Saddam was ultimately hanged for committing crimes against humanity. How many on the liberal left would support the same outcome for Assad?
I loathe war but Trump has been firm and decisive, I'm sure this will do him no harm in US.
Yes bombing an empty airbase , real tough. Ohone them up and give them a couple of hours to get a good vantage point for the fireworks display. Puff out chest and boast how tough you are , then wait for UK to claim they are your pals and have a good laugh.
What should he have done?
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
Philip, fact they can get the weapons elsewhere does not justify or make moral the UK desperation to make money out of selling bombs etc to these nutjobs. Have we no morals or principles in this country nowadys and justify aiding and abetting murder of women and children with the excuse that someone else would sell them anyway. How far we have fallen.
Morning Malc - just as a matter of interest do you know how many Scots jobs depend on the defence industry. This is a genuine question as I am under the impression that Scotland does have a substantial involvement in the sector
Morning Big G, I am not sure how many jobs involved believe about 38K in total with most being MOD or shipbuilding, so likely 10K or under in all spheres I would reckon. Regardless it is no reason to be supplying bombs to these types of regimes.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just shown Assad how powerless the West is. The fact that we (quite rightly) had to warn the Russians before hand so we didn't kill any of their people plus the fact that all we have actually done is put some holes in some concrete will as likely embolden Assad rather than deter him. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
steve hawkesVerified account @steve_hawkes 8m8 minutes ago
Tim Farron backs Trump and seems to suggest UK should consider "surgical strikes". Who'd have thought . Wonder what Ed Miliband think
Apperently the air base that Trump attacked was shared by the Russians.
Tim Farron is the most hawklike LD leader since Paddy Ashdown, if that is not a contradiction in terms
I wonder if such an attitude could hurt their progress in some places.
Farron is clearly targeting moderate Tories and Blairites not left-wing Labour voters like Charles Kennedy so it makes some sense
What about all that talk of replacing Labour and so on though? It's always seemed the LDs have a large contingent who wish they were outright to the left.
They cannot outCorbyn Corbyn and with the Manchester Gorton by election coming up Corbyn may oppose the strike with the excuse it lacked full UN backing
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
What about the limited aim of discouraging the use of chemical weapons?
If warnings were given in advance, there is no discouragement.
There is if you know the warnings are a one off.
To say next time there is no warning is a perfectly legitimate and humane way to give a message and reduce killing and demonstrate the devastation you can expect if go chemical again..
You really think the US are going to risk killing Russians by making attacks without informing them?
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
'Moderate' rebels were too weak to rule on their own and hold off ISIS
Mr. Sandpit, cheers for that post, I hadn't heard the Saturday race rumour.
Was from Martin Brundle on Sky, I'd say he has pretty good sources. Imagine there's going to be lots of discussions going on about what can be done.
It's complicated because the actual problem wasn't at the track, rather that the air ambulance helicopter can't land at the hospital in downtown Shanghai, there isn't another hospital close enough with suitable equipment and it's too far (38km) to do the trip by road. F1 takes these things really seriously, their rule is that there needs to be a neurological trauma centre no more than 20 minutes from the track.
Maybe cancelling the race will give the organisers food for thought about the Shanghai smog. BTW there is no provision to run the race later, if it doesn't happen on Sunday it won't happen at all. Next race is in Bahrain next weekend - and hopefully I'm going there to watch!
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
The moderate Anti-Assad forces were already on the way out well before 2013. This idea of picking the least radical from amongst forces that are almost entirely radicalised is a pipe dream.
UKIP lose both defences, one to LibDem, one to Con. Plus a LibDem hold and Con hold.
LibDems achieve greatest percentage vote rise in all four contests.
But the Tendring result shows the LibDems only advanced on the Tories by a net 0.1%. If that were nearer the picture nationally, none of those seats lost by the Libdems to the Tories in 2015 are coming back into the yellow column.
The May locals will give us a more valid picture. But even then, the stakes are not who controls national Government - Theresa May or Corbyn/Farron/Sturgeon....
Does anyone believe that touring America to add a further layer of confusion, by talking up another referendum, will create a single job for Scotland? It is self-indulgence taken to extremes. By refusing to park the pretence that Scotland is crying out for independence, Sturgeon is threatening years of economic sterility which will continue to translate into lost jobs and investment. There is a North American precedent – so why didn’t she go to Quebec, where she might have learned something useful?
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just shown Assad how powerless the West is. The fact that we (quite rightly) had to warn the Russians before hand so we didn't kill any of their people plus the fact that all we have actually done is put some holes in some concrete will as likely embolden Assad rather than deter him. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
He already called our bluff when he used chemical weapons, we've retaliated not struck first.
Had we done nothing he'd have been further emboldened. Had we not warned the Russians then the consequences could have been far worse.
Makes betting difficult. And I hope they don't announce it very late/early UK time or I could end up missing the race due to rescheduling.
Usually they are loath to change anything, because of TV scheduling commitments around the world. That they are even thinking about talking about possibly considering changing the race time, means they're seriously worried about not having a race at all.
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
To what end? Another "apology"?
Apologies are just fluff. There needs to be an acknowledgement of what happened and where out response went wrong, along with a determination that we will not stand by again.
Latest French polls essentially unchanged (despite a Daily Express article yesterday suggesting that Le Pen was close to victory!). Interesting that a March poll showed Melanchon crushing both Fillon and Le Pen if he reached the second round aainst either and running Macron reasonably close - hadn't noticed that before. But I doubt if he'll get the opportunity.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just shown Assad how powerless the West is. The fact that we (quite rightly) had to warn the Russians before hand so we didn't kill any of their people plus the fact that all we have actually done is put some holes in some concrete will as likely embolden Assad rather than deter him. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
Whereas not responding militarily would have demonstrated how powerful the west was?
I am fully in agreement with you that there seems to be no long term solution for Syria that flows from this. But the reinstatement of a red line would not have been achieved in any other way. It is a limited, proportional response that just might reestablish a bit of order on the international scene, where misrule has reigned since 08.
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
Fatcha!!!!!
The West's support for Saddam was not out of love of the old Iraqi bastard, but because he wasn't an Iranian bastard. The notion of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" did not have its finest hour in the 1980s. But people forget just how worrying the new Iranian theocracy was after the fall of the Shah. Complete with paraded US hostages.
Saddam's use of chemical weapons - on his own people - was as inexcusable as that of the Syrians today. And Saddam was ultimately hanged for committing crimes against humanity. How many on the liberal left would support the same outcome for Assad?
Not sure if I count as the 'liberal left', but I would: at least after a suitable (preferably international) trial.
(For people who don't like hrw, there are plenty of alternative sources, including the UN).
Edit: and I quite like and admire Thatcher. It's just that I think that she and Reagan did the wrong thing wrt Iraqi use of chemical weapons, even taking into account the geopolitical situation at the time.
1) A chemical attack happened in Syria, it was probably the Assad regime, but we can't be sure. 2) The US has launched a limited strike on the airfield where it believes this has taken place from. 3) The west has broadly condoned it, Russia has opposed. I assume Israel and Turkey will both welcome the action (Along with Saudi) whilst Beirut and Iran are likely opposed. We have not yet heard China's response. 4) Is this the start of a broader creep or just a specific targeting to warn against chemical weapon use,
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
The moderate Anti-Assad forces were already on the way out well before 2013. This idea of picking the least radical from amongst forces that are almost entirely radicalised is a pipe dream.
Nuttall now in alliance with Corbyn and Putin and Farron backing May and Trump, a turn up for the books!
How is this a turn up for anything ? Taking action against the usage of chemical weapons seems perfectly reasonable and justifiable.
Of course, Washington would have advised Moscow - I imagine the air base chosen would have had Russian "interests" but it's not the same as an attack on Latakia for example. I'm sure back channel communications would have made Moscow aware of the intention and the rationale.
Back in 2013, and possibly because of what had happened in Iraq and Libya, there was a feeling if we intervened actively in the Syrian Civil War it would be a precursor to boots on the ground and again given what had happened that was politically unacceptable (and presumably still is).
A political settlement in Syria needs to involve Moscow and it has to recognise that Moscow has strategic interests in the region and will not be pushed out of Latakia and its other bases. The West may have to live with that - so will a future non-Assad Syrian Government.
Does anyone believe that touring America to add a further layer of confusion, by talking up another referendum, will create a single job for Scotland? It is self-indulgence taken to extremes. By refusing to park the pretence that Scotland is crying out for independence, Sturgeon is threatening years of economic sterility which will continue to translate into lost jobs and investment. There is a North American precedent – so why didn’t she go to Quebec, where she might have learned something useful?
1) A chemical attack happened in Syria, it was probably the Assad regime, but we can't be sure. 2) The US has launched a limited strike on the airfield where it believes this has taken place from. 3) The west has broadly condoned it, Russia has opposed. I assume Israel and Turkey will both welcome the action (Along with Saudi) whilst Beirut and Iran are likely opposed. We have not yet heard China's response. 4) Is this the start of a broader creep or just a specific targeting to warn against chemical weapon use,
Stop the War will be expressing the Corbyn line on the air strikes, so best that Labour says nothing. Stop the War and UKIP are both Putin cheerleaders, of course.
1) A chemical attack happened in Syria, it was probably the Assad regime, but we can't be sure. 2) The US has launched a limited strike on the airfield where it believes this has taken place from. 3) The west has broadly condoned it, Russia has opposed. I assume Israel and Turkey will both welcome the action (Along with Saudi) whilst Beirut and Iran are likely opposed. We have not yet heard China's response. 4) Is this the start of a broader creep or just a specific targeting to warn against chemical weapon use,
Where do we go from here ?
As I asked below: So the big questions still stand: what next for Syria? What should the west's priorities be? What do we want?
Until we answer those questions and resolve to stick by the answers, the direction of travel is out of our hands.
Nuttall now in alliance with Corbyn and Putin and Farron backing May and Trump, a turn up for the books!
How is this a turn up for anything ? Taking action against the usage of chemical weapons seems perfectly reasonable and justifiable.
Of course, Washington would have advised Moscow - I imagine the air base chosen would have had Russian "interests" but it's not the same as an attack on Latakia for example. I'm sure back channel communications would have made Moscow aware of the intention and the rationale.
Back in 2013, and possibly because of what had happened in Iraq and Libya, there was a feeling if we intervened actively in the Syrian Civil War it would be a precursor to boots on the ground and again given what had happened that was politically unacceptable (and presumably still is).
A political settlement in Syria needs to involve Moscow and it has to recognise that Moscow has strategic interests in the region and will not be pushed out of Latakia and its other bases. The West may have to live with that - so will a future non-Assad Syrian Government.
I’m not sure that ‘boots on the ground’ are unacceptable to Trump.
Does anyone believe that touring America to add a further layer of confusion, by talking up another referendum, will create a single job for Scotland? It is self-indulgence taken to extremes. By refusing to park the pretence that Scotland is crying out for independence, Sturgeon is threatening years of economic sterility which will continue to translate into lost jobs and investment. There is a North American precedent – so why didn’t she go to Quebec, where she might have learned something useful?
Has anyone asked the vital question; What is the motivation for Assad using chemical weapons in a sparsely populated area where there were more children than male adults? It sounds like a propaganda exercise. I would think it reasonably easy to establish the facts beyond "it just seems very likely" which is Michael Farron's anwer to the question "Where's the proof?"
Has anyone asked the vital question; What is the motivation for Assad using chemical weapons in a sparsely populated area where there were more children than male adults? It sounds like a propaganda exercise. I would think it reasonably easy to establish the facts beyond "it just seems very likely" which is Michael Farron's anwer to the question "Where's the proof?"
I know we joke about it often, but do you mean MICHAEL Fallon or Tim FARRON ?
I loathe war but Trump has been firm and decisive, I'm sure this will do him no harm in US.
Yes bombing an empty airbase , real tough. Ohone them up and give them a couple of hours to get a good vantage point for the fireworks display. Puff out chest and boast how tough you are , then wait for UK to claim they are your pals and have a good laugh.
What should he have done?
In other words you don't know, and whatever he does you'll moan.
So we can guess you are a "nuke em till they glow" fanboy , preferring armchair entertainment of people being blown to bits rather than putting some thought into why the Syrians and others are killing each other, aided and funded by US and UK and what a solution is to the issue. Selling more bombs to et hnutters and dropping your own on teh wrong people most of the time is not very clever.
The source of the supply of weapons is irrelevant to the act of using them. Should UK or USA supply be unavailable, the vacuum will be filled by France, Russia, China or one of 50 other producers of military weaponry. The killing would continue unabated.
Edit to add: The ideological, human, political and religious reasons for the killing need to be removed from the region. That is nigh on impossible right now.
Philip, fact they can get the weapons elsewhere does not justify or make moral the UK desperation to make money out of selling bombs etc to these nutjobs. Have we no morals or principles in this country nowadys and justify aiding and abetting murder of women and children with the excuse that someone else would sell them anyway. How far we have fallen.
Morning Malc - just as a matter of interest do you know how many Scots jobs depend on the defence industry. This is a genuine question as I am under the impression that Scotland does have a substantial involvement in the sector
Morning Big G, I am not sure how many jobs involved believe about 38K in total with most being MOD or shipbuilding, so likely 10K or under in all spheres I would reckon. Regardless it is no reason to be supplying bombs to these types of regimes.
Has anyone asked the vital question; What is the motivation for Assad using chemical weapons in a sparsely populated area where there were more children than male adults? It sounds like a propaganda exercise. I would think it reasonably easy to establish the facts beyond "it just seems very likely" which is Michael Farron's anwer to the question "Where's the proof?"
I know we joke about it often, but do you mean MICHAEL Fallon or Tim FARRON ?
Has anyone asked the vital question; What is the motivation for Assad using chemical weapons in a sparsely populated area where there were more children than male adults? It sounds like a propaganda exercise. I would think it reasonably easy to establish the facts beyond "it just seems very likely" which is Michael Farron's anwer to the question "Where's the proof?"
It certainly smells fishy, bit too opportune. Suits all the fruitcakes and armchair generals though, they are easily convinced and gets away from issues at home. If only the intelligence was so good when the US bomb civilians, weddings, schools etc.
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
The moderate Anti-Assad forces were already on the way out well before 2013. This idea of picking the least radical from amongst forces that are almost entirely radicalised is a pipe dream.
That wasn't the situation at the time.
Yes it was. The Free Syrian Army had already lost most of its moderate leadership and was a loose confederation of dozens of different groups, most of which were hardline islamic extremists. As a serious opposition they were defunct long before the decision on intervention was made. The only real moderate opposition in the country was being provided by the Kurds.
Has anyone asked the vital question; What is the motivation for Assad using chemical weapons in a sparsely populated area where there were more children than male adults? It sounds like a propaganda exercise. I would think it reasonably easy to establish the facts beyond "it just seems very likely" which is Michael Farron's anwer to the question "Where's the proof?"
It's an important question. My answer:
It's total war. It's been going on for over five years now, and the Syrian government and Iranian forces are neither winning or losing against any of the opposing forces. All sides are low on manpower and materials. They've been using chlorine barrel-bombs fairy freely; if other weapons were available they'd probably use them.
My view back in 2013 was that the Syrian government did not order the specific release of the chemical weapons they used: local commanders used them (probably under general orders). That does not mean that the Assad government are not culpable for their use.
Has anyone asked the vital question; What is the motivation for Assad using chemical weapons in a sparsely populated area where there were more children than male adults? It sounds like a propaganda exercise. I would think it reasonably easy to establish the facts beyond "it just seems very likely" which is Michael Farron's anwer to the question "Where's the proof?"
It certainly smells fishy, bit too opportune. Suits all the fruitcakes and armchair generals though, they are easily convinced and gets away from issues at home. If only the intelligence was so good when the US bomb civilians, weddings, schools etc.
I agree with you. I don't believe a word of it. The very last thing that Assad who appears to be winning at last would do is use chemical weapons. Those that would benefit on the other side are too numerous to list. I was also struck by how Fallon chose his words carefully.
1) A chemical attack happened in Syria, it was probably the Assad regime, but we can't be sure. 2) The US has launched a limited strike on the airfield where it believes this has taken place from. 3) The west has broadly condoned it, Russia has opposed. I assume Israel and Turkey will both welcome the action (Along with Saudi) whilst Beirut and Iran are likely opposed. We have not yet heard China's response. 4) Is this the start of a broader creep or just a specific targeting to warn against chemical weapon use,
Where do we go from here ?
I think it is highly likely that Assad was responsible.
I think it is highly likely that this is a one-off from the US unless Assad repeats the use of chemical weapons.
If the US had not taken this action, it is highly likely that Assad would repeat it. Now it is less likely so I support the US action.
I think it is unlikely to seriously worsen US/Russia relations and the Tillerson visit to Moscow will go ahead as planned.
I think it is extremely unlikely to be a staged performance, agreed between Putin and Trump, to give Trump some relief from the accusations that he is in cahoots with Putin
UK industrial production, manufacturing and construction all contracting this month. Trade deficit also widening. I wonder if the first GDP figures post Article 50 will show us in recession.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just shown Assad how powerless the West is. The fact that we (quite rightly) had to warn the Russians before hand so we didn't kill any of their people plus the fact that all we have actually done is put some holes in some concrete will as likely embolden Assad rather than deter him. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
Whereas not responding militarily would have demonstrated how powerful the west was?
I am fully in agreement with you that there seems to be no long term solution for Syria that flows from this. But the reinstatement of a red line would not have been achieved in any other way. It is a limited, proportional response that just might reestablish a bit of order on the international scene, where misrule has reigned since 08.
Bottom line. It won't.
If we want any chance of a solution in Syria we limit the influence of Saudi Arabia and do a deal with the Russians that includes removing Assad and replacing him with another Russian backed leader but one who will listen to reason.
UK industrial production, manufacturing and construction all contracting this month. Trade deficit also widening. I wonder if the first GDP figures post Article 50 will show us in recession.
Not possible. At least 2 quarters needed on the standard definition.
UK industrial production, manufacturing and construction all contracting this month. Trade deficit also widening. I wonder if the first GDP figures post Article 50 will show us in recession.
Think Scotland will get there first judging by the most recent UK and Scotland GDP figures
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just shown Assad how powerless the West is. The fact that we (quite rightly) had to warn the Russians before hand so we didn't kill any of their people plus the fact that all we have actually done is put some holes in some concrete will as likely embolden Assad rather than deter him. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
Whereas not responding militarily would have demonstrated how powerful the west was?
I am fully in agreement with you that there seems to be no long term solution for Syria that flows from this. But the reinstatement of a red line would not have been achieved in any other way. It is a limited, proportional response that just might reestablish a bit of order on the international scene, where misrule has reigned since 08.
Bottom line. It won't.
If we want any chance of a solution in Syria we limit the influence of Saudi Arabia and do a deal with the Russians that includes removing Assad and replacing him with another Russian backed leader but one who will listen to reason.
Easier said than done. If there was any chance of Assad going he would have gone. Russia doesn't want to remove him so saying a solution should: "removing Assad" really doesn't get us any further forward.
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
The moderate Anti-Assad forces were already on the way out well before 2013. This idea of picking the least radical from amongst forces that are almost entirely radicalised is a pipe dream.
That wasn't the situation at the time.
Yes it was. The Free Syrian Army had already lost most of its moderate leadership and was a loose confederation of dozens of different groups, most of which were hardline islamic extremists. As a serious opposition they were defunct long before the decision on intervention was made. The only real moderate opposition in the country was being provided by the Kurds.
Nope. You used that line at the time, and it was as wrong then as it is now. The window of opportunity was still open.
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
The notion of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" did not have its finest hour in the 1980s.
As a matter of interest, which hour was its finest?
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
The notion of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" did not have its finest hour in the 1980s.
As a matter of interest, which hour was its finest?
The hour Soviet troops reached Berlin, at a guess.
UKIP lose both defences, one to LibDem, one to Con. Plus a LibDem hold and Con hold.
LibDems achieve greatest percentage vote rise in all four contests.
But the Tendring result shows the LibDems only advanced on the Tories by a net 0.1%. If that were nearer the picture nationally, none of those seats lost by the Libdems to the Tories in 2015 are coming back into the yellow column.
The May locals will give us a more valid picture. But even then, the stakes are not who controls national Government - Theresa May or Corbyn/Farron/Sturgeon....
True. But you're giving very limited facts to make your point. The LibDems increase in percentage vote across all four contests was:
Does anyone believe that touring America to add a further layer of confusion, by talking up another referendum, will create a single job for Scotland? It is self-indulgence taken to extremes. By refusing to park the pretence that Scotland is crying out for independence, Sturgeon is threatening years of economic sterility which will continue to translate into lost jobs and investment. There is a North American precedent – so why didn’t she go to Quebec, where she might have learned something useful?
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just shown Assad how powerless the West is. The fact that we (quite rightly) had to warn the Russians before hand so we didn't kill any of their people plus the fact that all we have actually done is put some holes in some concrete will as likely embolden Assad rather than deter him. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
Whereas not responding militarily would have demonstrated how powerful the west was?
I am fully in agreement with you that there seems to be no long term solution for Syria that flows from this. But the reinstatement of a red line would not have been achieved in any other way. It is a limited, proportional response that just might reestablish a bit of order on the international scene, where misrule has reigned since 08.
Bottom line. It won't.
If we want any chance of a solution in Syria we limit the influence of Saudi Arabia and do a deal with the Russians that includes removing Assad and replacing him with another Russian backed leader but one who will listen to reason.
Russia's essentially irrelevant. The real issue's Iran.
Why? Because Russia does not have the power in Syria to enforce any agreement. Iran does (or at least a heck of a lot more power).
Russia's only relevant when it comes to its own small interests in Syria. Guarantee those and they'll be happy.
Iran's a very different matter.
Let me ask you a question: what's your solution for Syria?
Regarding Corbyn’s lack of response to Syria, all that’s needed is a single tweet, one sentence, 140 characters or less. - What takes team friggin Jeremy so long to reply to any given event?
Does anyone believe that touring America to add a further layer of confusion, by talking up another referendum, will create a single job for Scotland? It is self-indulgence taken to extremes. By refusing to park the pretence that Scotland is crying out for independence, Sturgeon is threatening years of economic sterility which will continue to translate into lost jobs and investment. There is a North American precedent – so why didn’t she go to Quebec, where she might have learned something useful?
It's interesting the types that quote approvingly the output of old has beens who have not a scintilla of influence in Scottish politics. I wonder what they can have in common?
So after the US cruise missile attack last night on an Assad airfield it looks like Trump is not just all talk but also trousers after all!
There is no doubt that Trump's decision has highlighted Obama's failure to act in 2013 and also re-opens Miliband's disaster in playing politics with the vote in the HOC
Indeed though hitting Assad in 2013 was more risky if radical rebels had taken advantage, domestically Trump is doing worse than Obama as his healthcare failure showed but abroad he is doing better taking tough action where Obama failed
No. We did nothing in 2013 and radical rebels took advantage, and their poison spread back into Iraq as well.
At least in 2013 there were anti-Syrian forces who defected from the army, including some senior figures. These are the people and forces who Syria and Russia have targeted most, rather than ISIS. In many places they're now non-existent.
There was a window of opportunity back then. A small one, and it may not have worked, but a window nonetheless.
The moderate Anti-Assad forces were already on the way out well before 2013. This idea of picking the least radical from amongst forces that are almost entirely radicalised is a pipe dream.
That wasn't the situation at the time.
Yes it was. The Free Syrian Army had already lost most of its moderate leadership and was a loose confederation of dozens of different groups, most of which were hardline islamic extremists. As a serious opposition they were defunct long before the decision on intervention was made. The only real moderate opposition in the country was being provided by the Kurds.
Nope. You used that line at the time, and it was as wrong then as it is now. The window of opportunity was still open.
Sorry to see you so misinformed. You are right I did state this at the time and it was correct then just as it is now. It is one of the big reasons why the US was not trying seriously to back any of the opposition movements except the Kurds. They knew (and were proved right where they tried it) that anything they gave to the FSA would end up in the hands of the extremists in short order.
Using chemical weapons requires all right thinking nations to deliver God's own fury on the prepretrators. Or a visit to The Hague.
Yep. But that needs following to its natural conclusion. The west's craven support for Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the 1980s needs acknowledging. And that includes Mrs Thatcher.
The notion of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" did not have its finest hour in the 1980s.
As a matter of interest, which hour was its finest?
The hour Soviet troops reached Berlin, at a guess.
I am afraid I find myself on the opposite side of the argument to most people on here apparently and, not for the first time, agreeing with Malcolmg.
The whole point of launching military action is to achieve results - to make things better either for ourselves or for the people of Syria and the wider Middle East.
This attack and any others the West might launch against Assad, short of a full scale invasion which would be extremely costly in terms of lives all round, will achieve nothing. It is simply the US making itself feel better by doing 'something' but which will achieve absolutely nothing towards brining the conflict to a resolution. Those people supporting this attack need to explain exactly what it has achieved in real terms on the ground in Syria.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just shown Assad how powerless the West is. The fact that we (quite rightly) had to warn the Russians before hand so we didn't kill any of their people plus the fact that all we have actually done is put some holes in some concrete will as likely embolden Assad rather than deter him. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
Whereas not responding militarily would have demonstrated how powerful the west was?
I am fully in agreement with you that there seems to be no long term solution for Syria that flows from this. But the reinstatement of a red line would not have been achieved in any other way. It is a limited, proportional response that just might reestablish a bit of order on the international scene, where misrule has reigned since 08.
Bottom line. It won't.
If we want any chance of a solution in Syria we limit the influence of Saudi Arabia and do a deal with the Russians that includes removing Assad and replacing him with another Russian backed leader but one who will listen to reason.
Easier said than done. If there was any chance of Assad going he would have gone. Russia doesn't want to remove him so saying a solution should: "removing Assad" really doesn't get us any further forward.
I think Russia does not want Assad gone because the West have not accepted the idea that Syria remains within the Russian sphere of influence. This is all Russia cares about. Until it is clear that they will have a final say over who succeeds Assad they will continue to back him as the least worst alternative (for them)
Regarding Corbyn’s lack of response to Syria, all that’s needed is a single tweet, one sentence, 140 characters or less. - What takes team friggin Jeremy so long to reply to any given event?
Seamus has to lift him out of the bath and get the catheter back in before any policy decisions can be made.
Sorry to see you so misinformed. You are right I did state this at the time and it was correct then just as it is now. It is one of the big reasons why the US was not trying seriously to back any of the opposition movements except the Kurds. They knew (and were proved right where they tried it) that anything they gave to the FSA would end up in the hands of the extremists in short order.
Sorry to see that you're so misinformed.
I cannot blame you: the situation changed very rapidly due to our lack of action dating back even before the 2013 vote. Some large military groups rebelled from the Syrian government, and many of those were still extant in 2013. The army's part-rebellion is why the government could not beat down the rebellion, and that's a god reason why Assad concentrated on them instead of ISIS and others.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd still like to know what *your* solution would be, though.
An air strike on the airfield where the US believes the attack was launched from is the move they use in The Sum Of All Fears when they need to respond (because their fleet was attacked by a rogue general bribed by an Austrian Nazi) but they don't want to escalate World War III against Russia. I think the wording was the same as well.
It's hard to believe this is a serious point, but it is: Trump gets nearly all his information from TV. It's good to see there are some people around him sharp and sane enough to be feeding him movies like this.
Does anyone believe that touring America to add a further layer of confusion, by talking up another referendum, will create a single job for Scotland? It is self-indulgence taken to extremes. By refusing to park the pretence that Scotland is crying out for independence, Sturgeon is threatening years of economic sterility which will continue to translate into lost jobs and investment. There is a North American precedent – so why didn’t she go to Quebec, where she might have learned something useful?
It's interesting the types that quote approvingly the output of old has beens who have not a scintilla of influence in Scottish politics. I wonder what they can have in common?
I think the recently implemented changes to welfare system will have a "bedroom tax" impact on the Scottish Tory support. Any lingering doubts that Ruth is a Tory have now been dispelled - expect more articles like this:
Very sad that the Romanian National, Andrea Cristea, has died of her injuries in the Westminster attack. The family agreed to withdraw her life support today.
Oh that is sad. Her fiancé was planning to propose to her.
I think it establishes the red line again. Use chemical weapons and there will be a response. The effectiveness of this message is yet to be seen.
Not really. It has just s. So he calls our bluff and then we do what?
Whereas not responding militarily would have demonstrated how powerful the west was?
I am fully in agreement with you that there seems to be no long term solution for Syria that flows from this. But the reinstatement of a red line would not have been achieved in any other way. It is a limited, proportional response that just might reestablish a bit of order on the international scene, where misrule has reigned since 08.
Bottom line. It won't.
If we want any chance of a solution in Syria we limit the influence of Saudi Arabia and do a deal with the Russians that includes removing Assad and replacing him with another Russian backed leader but one who will listen to reason.
Easier said than done. If there was any chance of Assad going he would have gone. Russia doesn't want to remove him so saying a solution should: "removing Assad" really doesn't get us any further forward.
I think Russia does not want Assad gone because the West have not accepted the idea that Syria remains within the Russian sphere of influence. This is all Russia cares about. Until it is clear that they will have a final say over who succeeds Assad they will continue to back him as the least worst alternative (for them)
Yes I think that's true; Syria has long been Russia's ME proxy. But any successor is unlikely to be acceptable to both Russia and the US so we are going to be stuck where we are, and have been.
To be clear (and mirroring the Foreign Affairs article I linked to above, and which I saw just this moment), I don't think airstrikes will solve the Syrian problem. Nor do I think that the West has the appetite to send hundreds of thousands of troops in to subdue the country and allow some other form of government to emerge.
So we are where we are and the inhibition of Assad's inclination to use chemical weapons, with the added bonus of signalling to Russia that the US is awake, and at the same time satisfying Trump voters who wanted America to be Great Again, is a least awful option for The Donald (and his advisors).
Very sad that the Romanian National, Andrea Cristea, has died of her injuries in the Westminster attack. The family agreed to withdraw her life support today.
Oh that is sad. Her fiancé was planning to propose to her.
I realise this might not be the most appropriate time for pedantry, but surely he wasn't her fiancé in that case?
Russia's essentially irrelevant. The real issue's Iran.
Why? Because Russia does not have the power in Syria to enforce any agreement. Iran does (or at least a heck of a lot more power).
Russia's only relevant when it comes to its own small interests in Syria. Guarantee those and they'll be happy.
Iran's a very different matter.
Let me ask you a question: what's your solution for Syria?
Accept that Russia (and Iran as you mention) are the powerbrokers there. They will have the final say in who succeeds Assad and the US and Europe will have to accept it.
Be explicit in warning Saudi Arabia (who, after Assad, bear the largest amount of responsibility for the start of the war) that we will no longer tolerate their interference in other countries in the region. Now is the time to do this when Western reliability on Saudi oil is waning or even ending. Stop treating Saudi like a regional ally and start treating them like the problem.
Forget the territorial integrity of Syria. It is an artificial construct anyway. Allow the Kurds to break away and guarantee their existence as a separate state carved from Syria and Iraq on the condition they do not threaten the geographic integrity of Turkey. Turkey won't like it and may well pull out of NATO but at the moment they are as much of a liability as they are an asset.
On the US political fall-out, hard-core Trumpkins seem very narked off about this. Cernovich has been doing like a massive Periscope marathon.
I guess the upshot will be that Trump's overall ratings pick up a bit as voters see him looking presidential and doing normal presidenty types of things like bombing brown people, but his supporters will be less likely to turn out in Georgia / Kansas.
Does anyone believe that touring America to add a further layer of confusion, by talking up another referendum, will create a single job for Scotland? It is self-indulgence taken to extremes. By refusing to park the pretence that Scotland is crying out for independence, Sturgeon is threatening years of economic sterility which will continue to translate into lost jobs and investment. There is a North American precedent – so why didn’t she go to Quebec, where she might have learned something useful?
It's interesting the types that quote approvingly the output of old has beens who have not a scintilla of influence in Scottish politics. I wonder what they can have in common?
I think the recently implemented changes to welfare system will have a "bedroom tax" impact on the Scottish Tory support. Any lingering doubts that Ruth is a Tory have now been dispelled - expect more articles like this:
With Labour in full blown disarray - I wonder where their disenchanted supporters will head - Lib Dems? - I doubt it !!
The Scottish council elections will be interesting in Edinburgh specifically - 75% Remain, highest proportion of EU nationals in Scotland I believe, a population that would tend to be (understandably) disgusted with the 'Tory' rape clause.
I'd be interested to know when that photo was taken. Prior to 2011 Syria was pretty much seen as one of the more reasonable and stable states in the Middle East.
On the US political fall-out, hard-core Trumpkins seem very narked off about this. Cernovich has been doing like a massive Periscope marathon.
I guess the upshot will be that his overall ratings pick up a bit, but his supporters will be less likely to turn out in Georgia / Kansas.
I think it will have a bigger effect in the propaganda swamp that is Twitter and the array of 'fake news' sites than with the average Trump voter in Georgia or Kansas.
The narrative of a strong Russia defending Christian civilisation against mad Merkel and an assorted band of 'globalists' will start to crumble.
Russia's essentially irrelevant. The real issue's Iran.
Why? Because Russia does not have the power in Syria to enforce any agreement. Iran does (or at least a heck of a lot more power).
Russia's only relevant when it comes to its own small interests in Syria. Guarantee those and they'll be happy.
Iran's a very different matter.
Let me ask you a question: what's your solution for Syria?
Accept that Russia (and Iran as you mention) are the powerbrokers there. They will have the final say in who succeeds Assad and the US and Europe will have to accept it.
Be explicit in warning Saudi Arabia (who, after Assad, bear the largest amount of responsibility for the start of the war) that we will no longer tolerate their interference in other countries in the region. Now is the time to do this when Western reliability on Saudi oil is waning or even ending. Stop treating Saudi like a regional ally and start treating them like the problem.
Forget the territorial integrity of Syria. It is an artificial construct anyway. Allow the Kurds to break away and guarantee their existence as a separate state carved from Syria and Iraq on the condition they do not threaten the geographic integrity of Turkey. Turkey won't like it and may well pull out of NATO but at the moment they are as much of a liability as they are an asset.
I find it funny that you mention Iran once, and write a long paragraph on Saudi. Forget Saudi in this case: Iran's the player.
Your last paragraph has been my position since before the last vote. It'd cause large population movements, but there have been those anyway during the war. Splitting up Syria might be the least-worst option. There are obvious difficulties: for one, it has to be the choice of the population, and I'm unsure how you freely and fairly do that when the population has scattered.
I also said that if we did nothing the conflict would spread and destabilise the region. And it has.
On the US political fall-out, hard-core Trumpkins seem very narked off about this. Cernovich has been doing like a massive Periscope marathon.
I guess the upshot will be that his overall ratings pick up a bit, but his supporters will be less likely to turn out in Georgia / Kansas.
I think it will have a bigger effect in the propaganda swamp that is Twitter and the array of 'fake news' sites than with the average Trump voter in Georgia or Kansas.
The narrative of a strong Russia defending Christian civilisation against mad Merkel and an assorted band of 'globalists' will start to crumble.
They're congressional by-elections. They have shitty turnout, and the governing party has extra-shitty turnout. The average Trump voter wasn't going to be voting anyhow.
Comments
The West's support for Saddam was not out of love of the old Iraqi bastard, but because he wasn't an Iranian bastard. The notion of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" did not have its finest hour in the 1980s. But people forget just how worrying the new Iranian theocracy was after the fall of the Shah. Complete with paraded US hostages.
Saddam's use of chemical weapons - on his own people - was as inexcusable as that of the Syrians today. And Saddam was ultimately hanged for committing crimes against humanity. How many on the liberal left would support the same outcome for Assad?
It's complicated because the actual problem wasn't at the track, rather that the air ambulance helicopter can't land at the hospital in downtown Shanghai, there isn't another hospital close enough with suitable equipment and it's too far (38km) to do the trip by road. F1 takes these things really seriously, their rule is that there needs to be a neurological trauma centre no more than 20 minutes from the track.
Maybe cancelling the race will give the organisers food for thought about the Shanghai smog. BTW there is no provision to run the race later, if it doesn't happen on Sunday it won't happen at all. Next race is in Bahrain next weekend - and hopefully I'm going there to watch!
Makes betting difficult. And I hope they don't announce it very late/early UK time or I could end up missing the race due to rescheduling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/2017/chinese-grand-prix/results/practice
The May locals will give us a more valid picture. But even then, the stakes are not who controls national Government - Theresa May or Corbyn/Farron/Sturgeon....
He literally did nothing.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brian-wilson-nicola-sturgeon-should-leave-indyref2-fetish-at-airport-1-4413975
Had we done nothing he'd have been further emboldened.
Had we not warned the Russians then the consequences could have been far worse.
This was the least worst option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
The latest two German polls seem to suggest that Merkel is pulling away from Schultz:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I am fully in agreement with you that there seems to be no long term solution for Syria that flows from this. But the reinstatement of a red line would not have been achieved in any other way. It is a limited, proportional response that just might reestablish a bit of order on the international scene, where misrule has reigned since 08.
Leaving aside the chemical weapons, there are the following:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/16/if-dead-could-speak/mass-deaths-and-torture-syrias-detention-facilities
(For people who don't like hrw, there are plenty of alternative sources, including the UN).
Edit: and I quite like and admire Thatcher. It's just that I think that she and Reagan did the wrong thing wrt Iraqi use of chemical weapons, even taking into account the geopolitical situation at the time.
1) A chemical attack happened in Syria, it was probably the Assad regime, but we can't be sure.
2) The US has launched a limited strike on the airfield where it believes this has taken place from.
3) The west has broadly condoned it, Russia has opposed. I assume Israel and Turkey will both welcome the action (Along with Saudi) whilst Beirut and Iran are likely opposed. We have not yet heard China's response.
4) Is this the start of a broader creep or just a specific targeting to warn against chemical weapon use,
Where do we go from here ?
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/china-pre-qualifying-2017.html
Of course, Washington would have advised Moscow - I imagine the air base chosen would have had Russian "interests" but it's not the same as an attack on Latakia for example. I'm sure back channel communications would have made Moscow aware of the intention and the rationale.
Back in 2013, and possibly because of what had happened in Iraq and Libya, there was a feeling if we intervened actively in the Syrian Civil War it would be a precursor to boots on the ground and again given what had happened that was politically unacceptable (and presumably still is).
A political settlement in Syria needs to involve Moscow and it has to recognise that Moscow has strategic interests in the region and will not be pushed out of Latakia and its other bases. The West may have to live with that - so will a future non-Assad Syrian Government.
So the big questions still stand: what next for Syria? What should the west's priorities be? What do we want?
Until we answer those questions and resolve to stick by the answers, the direction of travel is out of our hands.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/850270271235776513
In a matter of war and peace we should be clear.
If only the intelligence was so good when the US bomb civilians, weddings, schools etc.
It's total war. It's been going on for over five years now, and the Syrian government and Iranian forces are neither winning or losing against any of the opposing forces. All sides are low on manpower and materials. They've been using chlorine barrel-bombs fairy freely; if other weapons were available they'd probably use them.
My view back in 2013 was that the Syrian government did not order the specific release of the chemical weapons they used: local commanders used them (probably under general orders). That does not mean that the Assad government are not culpable for their use.
I think it is highly likely that this is a one-off from the US unless Assad repeats the use of chemical weapons.
If the US had not taken this action, it is highly likely that Assad would repeat it. Now it is less likely so I support the US action.
I think it is unlikely to seriously worsen US/Russia relations and the Tillerson visit to Moscow will go ahead as planned.
I think it is extremely unlikely to be a staged performance, agreed between Putin and Trump, to give Trump some relief from the accusations that he is in cahoots with Putin
If we want any chance of a solution in Syria we limit the influence of Saudi Arabia and do a deal with the Russians that includes removing Assad and replacing him with another Russian backed leader but one who will listen to reason.
Unlike Eck to be backward in coming forward......
But you're giving very limited facts to make your point.
The LibDems increase in percentage vote across all four contests was:
+11.2
+37.9
+6.8
+12.8
The Tories change in those seats was :
-0.5
-9.3
-4.3
+12.7 (and here UKIP -16.3)
Why? Because Russia does not have the power in Syria to enforce any agreement. Iran does (or at least a heck of a lot more power).
Russia's only relevant when it comes to its own small interests in Syria. Guarantee those and they'll be happy.
Iran's a very different matter.
Let me ask you a question: what's your solution for Syria?
https://foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2017-04-06/syria-policy-after-chemical-attacks?cid=nlc-twofa-20170406&sp_mid=53797826&sp_rid=YWthc2tldEBob3RtYWlsLmNvbQS2&spMailingID=53797826&spUserID=MjEwNDg3NTA3MDkxS0&spJobID=1141077969&spReportId=MTE0MTA3Nzk2OQS2
Sub-heading: Stopping the Gas, Not Toppling Assad, Should Be the Goal
Probable wet race, though...smog allowing.
And I agree it's unlikely, but that would be a cracking grid for the race.
Edited extra bit: if you think it will be soggy, Verstappen at 17 each way for the win may be worth considering.
I cannot blame you: the situation changed very rapidly due to our lack of action dating back even before the 2013 vote. Some large military groups rebelled from the Syrian government, and many of those were still extant in 2013. The army's part-rebellion is why the government could not beat down the rebellion, and that's a god reason why Assad concentrated on them instead of ISIS and others.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd still like to know what *your* solution would be, though.
It's hard to believe this is a serious point, but it is: Trump gets nearly all his information from TV. It's good to see there are some people around him sharp and sane enough to be feeding him movies like this.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/rape-clause-child-tax-new-10176251#ICID=ios_DailyRecordNewsApp_AppShare_Click_Twitter
With Labour in full blown disarray - I wonder where their disenchanted supporters will head - Lib Dems? - I doubt it !!
To be clear (and mirroring the Foreign Affairs article I linked to above, and which I saw just this moment), I don't think airstrikes will solve the Syrian problem. Nor do I think that the West has the appetite to send hundreds of thousands of troops in to subdue the country and allow some other form of government to emerge.
So we are where we are and the inhibition of Assad's inclination to use chemical weapons, with the added bonus of signalling to Russia that the US is awake, and at the same time satisfying Trump voters who wanted America to be Great Again, is a least awful option for The Donald (and his advisors).
Be explicit in warning Saudi Arabia (who, after Assad, bear the largest amount of responsibility for the start of the war) that we will no longer tolerate their interference in other countries in the region. Now is the time to do this when Western reliability on Saudi oil is waning or even ending. Stop treating Saudi like a regional ally and start treating them like the problem.
Forget the territorial integrity of Syria. It is an artificial construct anyway. Allow the Kurds to break away and guarantee their existence as a separate state carved from Syria and Iraq on the condition they do not threaten the geographic integrity of Turkey. Turkey won't like it and may well pull out of NATO but at the moment they are as much of a liability as they are an asset.
I guess the upshot will be that Trump's overall ratings pick up a bit as voters see him looking presidential and doing normal presidenty types of things like bombing brown people, but his supporters will be less likely to turn out in Georgia / Kansas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/12018804/Alex-Salmond-unveils-portrait-as-he-misses-Syria-debate.html
The narrative of a strong Russia defending Christian civilisation against mad Merkel and an assorted band of 'globalists' will start to crumble.
Your last paragraph has been my position since before the last vote. It'd cause large population movements, but there have been those anyway during the war. Splitting up Syria might be the least-worst option. There are obvious difficulties: for one, it has to be the choice of the population, and I'm unsure how you freely and fairly do that when the population has scattered.
I also said that if we did nothing the conflict would spread and destabilise the region. And it has.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/850171163527581697?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.vox.com/2017/4/6/15215376/alt-right-trump-syria
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/850174283116662784?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.vox.com/2017/4/6/15215376/alt-right-trump-syria