If this immigration crisis continues I could easily see Britain (including all four parts) voting "Leave".
If we are going to spend billions on this crisis, then it would be better spent on making the refugee camps and accommodations in Turkey and other neighbouring countries bearable, making Syria a functioning state, even if that means a Yugoslavia style break up along ethnic lines, and cutting a deal with Assad to eliminate ISIS. I'm sure Mr Jessop is going to go berserk again, but in the real world, real adults need to make grown up decisions. We don't live in a utopia where everyone and everything is perfect. Sometimes we have to get into bed with the lesser evil, and among all the groups in Syria, Assad is the lesser evil. ISIS, al-Nusra and the other factions are hardline Islamists who wouldn't hesitate to kill all non-Sunni people in the nation.
Opening the floodgates and accepting between four and seven million refugees/migrants into Europe is going to have a long term cost into the hundreds of billions if not more, it makes much, much more sense to spend a fraction of that cost in Syria and the surrounding countries over the next 10 years so that these people can be settled back into Syria.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
If Donald Trump gets the Republican Nomination and Bernie Sanders the Democratic Nomination, does that leave enough space and/or appetite for a credible centrist 3rd Party Run? I'm thinking Michal Bloomberg in particular?
In the past 3rd party candidates have struggled even when they have come with millions of there own dollars, like Rose Parot.
But the two parties are no so fares apart they and extreme, puled that way by there own respective special interests, that they have become distant from some many moderate/independent voters.
Perhaps this time could be different? love to here other peoples opinions.
If Hillary Clinton or Biden is the Democratic nominee Bloomberg is unlikely to run, similarly if Jeb Bush is GOP nominee he is unlikely to run. If however the GOP pick a non establishment populist like Trump running on an anti immigrant ticket and the Democrats pick a non establishment populist like Bernie Sanders on an anti Wall Street ticket then Bloomberg is highly likely to run and could have a real chance of winning. He could take a more moderate line on immigration than Trump helping him to win the Hispanic and minority vote and a more fiscally conservative line than Sanders helping him win the suburban middle classes and he is actually richer than Trump and could easily run his own campaign. Having been a Republican and a Democrat in the past and a competent Mayor of NYC he could appeal to independents and is even richer than Trump so could easily fund his own campaign
@HurstLlama - as a family we don't impose an official line on political matters. One of my cousins funds Business for Britain; another the IEA; while my father is much more involved in industrial policy matters. You might say that we are entirely apolitical: we all vote conservative.
@SouthamObserver - as always there is a middle ground. He is not innately wicked, and it was more than a toothache. But he wasn't fleeing in fear.
On my first trip to the USA as a 15 year old I went to Jockey Hollow in Morristown. A reporter for a local newspaper was there that day doing a feature, so my picture was in the paper and I was mentioned in the article. They gave me a couple of copies of the paper that I sent home to my parents in England.
Next year is the 50th anniversary of my going to the top (102nd floor) of the Empire State Building, and climbing to the light on the Statue of Liberty. There was no World Trade Center then.
The other aspect is that there are no doubt, within the refugee camps and elsewhere, Syrians with skills we can use, doctors, engineers and the like. There will be a temptation when we look to take "our share" of the refugees to prioritise those people and rightly so.
However, these are the very people who will be crucial in rebuilding Syria once the fighting stops and peace returns - IF we invest in them by bringing them to the UK and employing them in Britain, I also think we need to continue that investment by encouraging them, once conditions allow, to return to Syria to lead the reconstruction and aiding that reconstruction process as part of a (hopefully) regional and global effort.
But unfortunately, Yorkshire forgot the old adage that you should never lengthen your batting at the expense of your bowling. Poor team selection and it's not as though the extra batsmen actually scored the runs they should have done anyway. Hard to imagine Brooks and Sidebottom would not have made life much more difficult for Gloucestershire.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
It means military assistance for Assad and bombing ISIS positions so that the Assad forces can push them back on the ground. The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis. The FSA are basically either dead or dispersed. They are a spent force and there is no major groundswell of support for them because they were worse than Assad at governance.
Libya is a more difficult problem as it has many more factions and no one to back. I don't know enough about Eritrea and Yemen to make a judgement. I just know that al-Nusra are causing problems in Yemen.
Since Osborne thinks it was a big mistake not to start bombing Assad 2 years ago, is he suggesting that we should still be bombing him now? Or should we now be bombing both sides? Or have quietly switched to bombing IS and hoped nobody noticed the difference?
Trump combines left wing as well as right wing positions, which may help to explain his appeal.
I think that throughout the West, there's a big constituency for social right/economic left politics.
Indeed, Trump has praised the NHS in Scotland and called for an end for tax breaks for hedge funds, while also pushing a populist anti immigration line. As a billionaire he is certainly no socialist but nor is he a libertarian either and indeed he has also been hardening his more moderate line on gay marriage and abortion
OT @Indigo Has there been any mention of a girl band called 4th Power in your local media? They've been on X-Factor UK and got a huge thumbs up from the panel and Simon Cowell [£££ in his eyes].
They were very very good in a teeny-weeny Christina Aguilara way.
But unfortunately, Yorkshire forgot the old adage that you should never lengthen your batting at the expense of your bowling. Poor team selection and it's not as though the extra batsmen actually scored the runs they should have done anyway. Hard to imagine Brooks and Sidebottom would not have made life much more difficult for Gloucestershire.
Have you any idea why our overseas player(FInch) didn't play ?
Someone ought to inform people in Germany that they need to take in another 7 million people in order to match the UK's population increase over the last 20 years (during which their population dropped slightly). They might stop being so smug then.
The stewards having a think is nearly longer than the race.
(snip)
Just be thankful that they're not undertaking a Chilcot-style process of Maxwellisation. If they did, we might know the result of this GP after Lewis is crowned 2021 champion.
But unfortunately, Yorkshire forgot the old adage that you should never lengthen your batting at the expense of your bowling. Poor team selection and it's not as though the extra batsmen actually scored the runs they should have done anyway. Hard to imagine Brooks and Sidebottom would not have made life much more difficult for Gloucestershire.
Have you any idea why our overseas player(FInch) didn't play ?
Isn't he injured? In any case, if he wasn't he'd be playing for Australia at the moment.
EDIT: I think this explains the full story in grim detail:
Interestingly, if it is Trump v Clinton then that will be the first battle of two New Yorkers for president since FDR faced Dewey in 1944. It almost happened in 2008 with Giuliani v Clinton but ended up McCain v Obama. If Bloomberg goes third party that would add another New Yorker to the mix
Even Michael Foot and William Hague had a few poll leads so I would not read too much in to it at this stage on 2011 Mitt Romney had led Obama in several polls while this is the first poll showing Trump leading Clinton and Biden. If the poll average shows a poll lead for Trump then that really does change things but what polls like this could do is help ensure Trump beats Jeb Bush for the nomination
Trump is just cheap, nasty, and stupid. Foot and Hague were none of these things.
I rather have an irrational belief that Hilary will make a good president. She's clever, and all the rest of it, but in the heady mix of politics she still has a great smile. I think it's very unfortunate for her that Obama arrived when he did. On balance I don't quite see her getting to the White House, however I think that perhaps she might see a female President. Fiorina this time is a small chance.
But unfortunately, Yorkshire forgot the old adage that you should never lengthen your batting at the expense of your bowling. Poor team selection and it's not as though the extra batsmen actually scored the runs they should have done anyway. Hard to imagine Brooks and Sidebottom would not have made life much more difficult for Gloucestershire.
Have you any idea why our overseas player(FInch) didn't play ?
Isn't he injured? In any case, if he wasn't he'd be playing for Australia at the moment.
EDIT: I think this explains the full story in grim detail:
If this immigration crisis continues I could easily see Britain (including all four parts) voting "Leave".
The German position is absolutely mad and these scenes where people are welcoming them by clapping etc... paints a very misleading picture of universal support. To me it is very similar to Twitter and polls saying Labour would end up the largest party in May over here and the election result delivered Labour their worse defeat since 1987. The narrative that the German media and government, as well as a few useful idiots, are pushing is, IMO, at odds with the majority of German society.
What's worse is that over here we have the same useful idiots pushing the same idiotic agenda, thankfully the government are made up of grown ups who, for the first time in a while, are not chasing headlines or trying to look as if they are doing something.
If we are going to spend billions on this crisis, then it would be better spent on making the refugee camps and accommodations in Turkey and other neighbouring countries bearable, making Syria a functioning state, even if that means a Yugoslavia style break up along ethnic lines, and cutting a deal with Assad to eliminate ISIS. I'm sure Mr Jessop is going to go berserk again, but in the real world, real adults need to make grown up decisions. We don't live in a utopia where everyone and everything is perfect. Sometimes we have to get into bed with the lesser evil, and among all the groups in Syria, Assad is the lesser evil. ISIS, al-Nusra and the other factions are hardline Islamists who wouldn't hesitate to kill all non-Sunni people in the nation.
Opening the floodgates and accepting between four and seven million refugees/migrants into Europe is going to have a long term cost into the hundreds of billions if not more, it makes much, much more sense to spend a fraction of that cost in Syria and the surrounding countries over the next 10 years so that these people can be settled back into Syria.
Every pound or euro spent in MENA goes much further than the same money spent in the EU. Every unaccompanied child in the UK costs £50,000 pa to look after. The same amount of money probably enables 10 children to be looked after on the ground. The priority should be saving lives, not providing a Western standard of living.
Trump combines left wing as well as right wing positions, which may help to explain his appeal.
I think that throughout the West, there's a big constituency for social right/economic left politics.
Trump's appeal is pretty basic.
It's a reaction to almost 7 years of the Obama administration, whose policies now have almost 3 out of 4 Americans saying they think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
In addition they gave Republicans control of the Senate last year. Even they understood that the vote was not so much an endorsement of Republicans as a complete repudiation of Obama and the democrats, who had kept the Senate almost inactive for 6 years with Harry Reid letting very few bills come to the floor.
With the Republicans in control of both houses they wanted Washington to start working again.
So far the Republicans have signally failed to do that.
Sanders appeal is essentially an anti-Hillary protest vote.
Trump's achilles heel is that at times he has been a Democrat, a Republican, and has been on both sides of most issues.
But then in terms of issues so has Hillary. She's actually running against some of her husband's policies now.
BREAKING The Independent @Independent 31m31 minutes ago Austria to close borders again after 12,000 refugees enter from Hungary in 48 hours http://ind.pn/1hNc58L
Well done Merkel – Austria’s attempt to implement EU law, holed beneath the waterline.
I imagine Merkel's announcement will not be felt for seveal weeks/months. Once word starts to get back to people in the Middle East and Africa that everyone is welcome they will set off.
The other aspect is that there are no doubt, within the refugee camps and elsewhere, Syrians with skills we can use, doctors, engineers and the like. There will be a temptation when we look to take "our share" of the refugees to prioritise those people and rightly so.
However, these are the very people who will be crucial in rebuilding Syria once the fighting stops and peace returns - IF we invest in them by bringing them to the UK and employing them in Britain, I also think we need to continue that investment by encouraging them, once conditions allow, to return to Syria to lead the reconstruction and aiding that reconstruction process as part of a (hopefully) regional and global effort.
No, cherrypicking skilled refugees and settling them in Britain is not right. We should not seek to profit from the misery of millions of people.
(snip) If we are going to spend billions on this crisis, then it would be better spent on making the refugee camps and accommodations in Turkey and other neighbouring countries bearable, making Syria a functioning state, even if that means a Yugoslavia style break up along ethnic lines, and cutting a deal with Assad to eliminate ISIS. I'm sure Mr Jessop is going to go berserk again, but in the real world, real adults need to make grown up decisions.(snip)
I'm not going to go beserk: it's just a shame that an intelligent person such as yourself would come to such a conclusion. Using your terminology: 'real world adults' might realise that 'grown-up decisions' involve deeper thinking than just reacting to the current crisis.
Do you still think, as you indicated yesterday, that Assad didn't use chemical weapons in 2013?
Also: do you retract what you said yesterday about me wrt your claim that I 'bang on about how wonderful the opposition is' ?
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
The 'legitimate' armed Syrian opposition (or FSA) are pretty rare flora and fauna now. Vast numbers have been compelled either by horror at what their foreign Islamist chums have been doing to their country, or by the need to survive, to surrender and be pardoned. For a very long time, the anti-Assad forces on the ground have comprised mainly foreign militias from every corner of the earth (including this one as we know). Even the most 'moderate' of these are still 'Alluhah Akbhar' (as they blow people up) shouting Islamists. Russia (clearly running the Assad show at this point) have said that the opposition should be involved, and I have no doubt that what waifs and strays remain would be.
As for dropping bombs on people, how else does one fight a civil war when your enemies are sheltering themselves in mosques, schools and hospitals?
The polling is going towards Trump for quite some time now, his lead might be a fluke but the trend is favourable towards him. As for HYUFD's assertions that Bloomberg might run as an independent if Trump is the GOP nominee, I see it as possible but not probable, these days though Bloomberg is more popular with democrats than republicans, it's easy to conceive that he might damage Hillary more than Trump if he runs.
But I suggest patience, Trump is a very good trading bet, but no one knows what might happen after Christmas. So far what we know is that americans love TV stars, only 3 candidates out of 17 can connect with the republican voters (Trump, Carson, Cruz), and that voters like authenticity with people who look and talk like them.
The other aspect is that there are no doubt, within the refugee camps and elsewhere, Syrians with skills we can use, doctors, engineers and the like. There will be a temptation when we look to take "our share" of the refugees to prioritise those people and rightly so.
However, these are the very people who will be crucial in rebuilding Syria once the fighting stops and peace returns - IF we invest in them by bringing them to the UK and employing them in Britain, I also think we need to continue that investment by encouraging them, once conditions allow, to return to Syria to lead the reconstruction and aiding that reconstruction process as part of a (hopefully) regional and global effort.
No, cherrypicking skilled refugees and settling them in Britain is not right. We should not seek to profit from the misery of millions of people.
So long as these people also profit from it what's wrong with it?
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
It means military assistance for Assad and bombing ISIS positions so that the Assad forces can push them back on the ground. The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis. The FSA are basically either dead or dispersed. They are a spent force and there is no major groundswell of support for them because they were worse than Assad at governance.
Libya is a more difficult problem as it has many more factions and no one to back. I don't know enough about Eritrea and Yemen to make a judgement. I just know that al-Nusra are causing problems in Yemen.
"The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis."
Are you forgetting the Kurds when you claim the above? Can you answer the question I posed yesterday: how do you protect the Kurds from Assad's wrath?
When Assad came to power in Syria my thoughts were that he could be a key to solving the middle east's woes. He lived in the UK for a while, training as a dentist (I think - and clearly i could just look up), and seemed a quiet, reasonable sort of man. I don't think that has changed. Undoubtedly when he found himself in power in Syria he was pulled in all sorts of ways, but I can't really believe that he's this rabid dog that he's portrayed to be.
And just typing this it strikes me that something is amiss with the picture we have.
OT @Indigo Has there been any mention of a girl band called 4th Power in your local media? They've been on X-Factor UK and got a huge thumbs up from the panel and Simon Cowell [£££ in his eyes].
They were very very good in a teeny-weeny Christina Aguilara way.
They have also been a recording act int the Philippines for a while. They were talent-scouted specifically to appear on the show.
Trump combines left wing as well as right wing positions, which may help to explain his appeal.
I think that throughout the West, there's a big constituency for social right/economic left politics.
The metropolitan elite, of which I am one, is definitely socially liberal, and economically conservative.
I wonder how the circle can be squared. It seems the chasm is very wide.
The Labour party was socially conservative and left wing economically until the late 60's, only after Roy Jenkins did they dump social conservatism but it was a long process.
Author claims MI6 physicist Wilfred Mann was the sixth member of the infamous Cambridge Spy Ring
A sixth member of the Cambridge Spy Ring has been revealed as an MI6 physicist known to colleagues as "Atomic Man", according to an expert who has devoted 30 years into researching the infamous group.
Wilfred Mann denied the allegations that he was a KGB agent, helping the Russians develop their own atom bomb, in his 1982 book Was There A Fifth Man?
The Telegraph credits the Mail, or possibly a book serialisation in the Mail. Mann (and what is an MI6 physicist?) was never at Cambridge, so even if he was a spy, he was probably not part of the Cambridge spy ring.
OT @Indigo Has there been any mention of a girl band called 4th Power in your local media? They've been on X-Factor UK and got a huge thumbs up from the panel and Simon Cowell [£££ in his eyes].
They were very very good in a teeny-weeny Christina Aguilara way.
They have also been a recording act int the Philippines for a while. They were talent-scouted specifically to appear on the show.
Unlike the UK, Germany refused to allow Eastern Europeans to work in their country between 2004 and 2011.
I'd assume it was because they had real problems with unemployment in the East which was still being digested post unification. So they wanted to help their own first.
(snip) If we are going to spend billions on this crisis, then it would be better spent on making the refugee camps and accommodations in Turkey and other neighbouring countries bearable, making Syria a functioning state, even if that means a Yugoslavia style break up along ethnic lines, and cutting a deal with Assad to eliminate ISIS. I'm sure Mr Jessop is going to go berserk again, but in the real world, real adults need to make grown up decisions.(snip)
I'm not going to go beserk: it's just a shame that an intelligent person such as yourself would come to such a conclusion. Using your terminology: 'real world adults' might realise that 'grown-up decisions' involve deeper thinking than just reacting to the current crisis.
Do you still think, as you indicated yesterday, that Assad didn't use chemical weapons in 2013?
Also: do you retract what you said yesterday about me wrt your claim that I 'bang on about how wonderful the opposition is' ?
No?
Bring evidence that chlorine was used by Assad and I will listen. So far it seems more likely that chlorine was used by ISIS or al-Nusra, given that it is not a sophisticated chemical weapon, the likes of which Assad has access to.
You were the one banging on about how we should have backed the FSA in 2013 and bombed Assad's position. I disagreed then and I still do.
As for being a grown up, well I think you need to look at the situation of around seven million displaced people and try and think of the best solution to ensure that they are settled back into their homeland safely. That means making the tough decisions, not just putting fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and hoping it all goes away without having to pick a side.
Neither side are worthy of western support, that much has been made clear over the crisis, but we need to pick the side that will ensure minorities and non-Sunni people are protected and not persecuted. Assad may have a woeful record on political dissent, but he was much fairer than ISIS could ever be when it came to minorities such as Jews, Christians and others.
So I ask you, faced with Islamists on one side, and a dictator on the other, who would you pick? Neither is not an answer that grown ups can choose in the face of seven million displaced people.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
It means military assistance for Assad and bombing ISIS positions so that the Assad forces can push them back on the ground. The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis. The FSA are basically either dead or dispersed. They are a spent force and there is no major groundswell of support for them because they were worse than Assad at governance.
Libya is a more difficult problem as it has many more factions and no one to back. I don't know enough about Eritrea and Yemen to make a judgement. I just know that al-Nusra are causing problems in Yemen.
"The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis."
Are you forgetting the Kurds when you claim the above? Can you answer the question I posed yesterday: how do you protect the Kurds from Assad's wrath?
The Kurds and Assad have done a deal long ago in exchange for autonomy of the main kurdish areas, one of the reasons why Turkey seems to be funding ISIS and bombing the kurds.
Turkey has a very old fear of kurds forming their own state because of they are a majority in 1/4 of turkish territory, it couples greatly with Erdogan's islamic ideals, also you can't make a new Ottoman Empire without breaking eggs, in this case Syria.
If this immigration crisis continues I could easily see Britain (including all four parts) voting "Leave".
If we are going to spend billions on this crisis, then it would be better spent on making the refugee camps and accommodations in Turkey and other neighbouring countries bearable, making Syria a functioning state, even if that means a Yugoslavia style break up along ethnic lines, and cutting a deal with Assad to eliminate ISIS. I'm sure Mr Jessop is going to go berserk again, but in the real world, real adults need to make grown up decisions. We don't live in a utopia where everyone and everything is perfect. Sometimes we have to get into bed with the lesser evil, and among all the groups in Syria, Assad is the lesser evil. ISIS, al-Nusra and the other factions are hardline Islamists who wouldn't hesitate to kill all non-Sunni people in the nation.
Opening the floodgates and accepting between four and seven million refugees/migrants into Europe is going to have a long term cost into the hundreds of billions if not more, it makes much, much more sense to spend a fraction of that cost in Syria and the surrounding countries over the next 10 years so that these people can be settled back into Syria.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
I've been told by someone I rate that one of the biggest issues is the prosecution of former dictators in the international courts.
Previously you could give them $100m and send them off to the East or Latin America or Switzerland. Now they have no incentive to go quietly.
Trump combines left wing as well as right wing positions, which may help to explain his appeal.
I think that throughout the West, there's a big constituency for social right/economic left politics.
The metropolitan elite, of which I am one, is definitely socially liberal, and economically conservative.
I wonder how the circle can be squared. It seems the chasm is very wide.
The Labour party was socially conservative and left wing economically until the late 60's, only after Roy Jenkins did they dump social conservatism but it was a long process.
Who made the running post-Jenkins? (I think he's a good milepost)
Since Osborne thinks it was a big mistake not to start bombing Assad 2 years ago, is he suggesting that we should still be bombing him now? Or should we now be bombing both sides? Or have quietly switched to bombing IS and hoped nobody noticed the difference?
I know this might be a strange concept to a die-in-the-wool Labourite, but time passes. Corbyn might be trapped in the 1920s, but the world has moved on in the last hundred-odd years.
In a similar manner, the strategic and tactical situation in Syria has changed in the last two years.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
The 'legitimate' armed Syrian opposition (or FSA) are pretty rare flora and fauna now. Vast numbers have been compelled either by horror at what their foreign Islamist chums have been doing to their country, or by the need to survive, to surrender and be pardoned. (snip)
Trump combines left wing as well as right wing positions, which may help to explain his appeal.
I think that throughout the West, there's a big constituency for social right/economic left politics.
The metropolitan elite, of which I am one, is definitely socially liberal, and economically conservative.
I wonder how the circle can be squared. It seems the chasm is very wide.
There was an interesting piece in the Economist about a meeting at which trade unionists were cheering Trump on as he denounced big business. I think Trump stands in the same tradition as people like William Jennings Bryant and Huey Long.
Rightly or wrongly, I think only a minority of Westerners think they're profiting from globalization.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Even Michael Foot and William Hague had a few poll leads so I would not read too much in to it at this stage on 2011 Mitt Romney had led Obama in several polls while this is the first poll showing Trump leading Clinton and Biden. If the poll average shows a poll lead for Trump then that really does change things but what polls like this could do is help ensure Trump beats Jeb Bush for the nomination
Trump is just cheap, nasty, and stupid. Foot and Hague were none of these things.
I rather have an irrational belief that Hilary will make a good president. She's clever, and all the rest of it, but in the heady mix of politics she still has a great smile. I think it's very unfortunate for her that Obama arrived when he did. On balance I don't quite see her getting to the White House, however I think that perhaps she might see a female President. Fiorina this time is a small chance.
Trump is the US Farage/Berlusconi. On balance I would still say Hillary will win, but it is by no means certain, Fiorina has virtually no chance other than as a VP pick
I cannot help but believe that the cost ,in so many ways, of Britain and the EU of taking in these migrants will eventually fall on the shoulders of the poor buggers who have to go out to work everyday..and in the future their kids will have to contend with a very strident religious group.The Professor from Oxford just on SKY TV was going on about how we should embrace all of these people and welcome them into our community..she has no idea that a Syrian family being given a house pushes a British family further down the list.. the family that is paying taxes for a foreign family to jump ahead of them in the queue...this is a recipe for social unrest and may just burst the banks.
BREAKING The Independent @Independent 31m31 minutes ago Austria to close borders again after 12,000 refugees enter from Hungary in 48 hours http://ind.pn/1hNc58L
Well done Merkel – Austria’s attempt to implement EU law, holed beneath the waterline.
I imagine Merkel's announcement will not be felt for seveal weeks/months. Once word starts to get back to people in the Middle East and Africa that everyone is welcome they will set off.
I’ve no doubt the position will now get much worse after Merkel’s ham-fisted intervention. Mobile phones will be buzzing between the Hungarian and Syrian border and all points in-between.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
It means military assistance for Assad and bombing ISIS positions so that the Assad forces can push them back on the ground. The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis. The FSA are basically either dead or dispersed. They are a spent force and there is no major groundswell of support for them because they were worse than Assad at governance.
Libya is a more difficult problem as it has many more factions and no one to back. I don't know enough about Eritrea and Yemen to make a judgement. I just know that al-Nusra are causing problems in Yemen.
"The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis."
Are you forgetting the Kurds when you claim the above? Can you answer the question I posed yesterday: how do you protect the Kurds from Assad's wrath?
They have already cut a deal with Assad, they need protection from one of our "allies", Turkey. The same Sunni nation that have been funding ISIS and al-Nusra to destabilise Assad.
When Assad came to power in Syria my thoughts were that he could be a key to solving the middle east's woes. He lived in the UK for a while, training as a dentist (I think - and clearly i could just look up), and seemed a quiet, reasonable sort of man. I don't think that has changed. Undoubtedly when he found himself in power in Syria he was pulled in all sorts of ways, but I can't really believe that he's this rabid dog that he's portrayed to be.
And just typing this it strikes me that something is amiss with the picture we have.
Trump combines left wing as well as right wing positions, which may help to explain his appeal.
I think that throughout the West, there's a big constituency for social right/economic left politics.
The metropolitan elite, of which I am one, is definitely socially liberal, and economically conservative.
I wonder how the circle can be squared. It seems the chasm is very wide.
The Labour party was socially conservative and left wing economically until the late 60's, only after Roy Jenkins did they dump social conservatism but it was a long process.
Anthony Crosland was also a Labour social liberal. Though it was really a combination of the likes of Ken Livingstone and the New Left and then New Labour who completed the process.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
It means military assistance for Assad and bombing ISIS positions so that the Assad forces can push them back on the ground. The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis. The FSA are basically either dead or dispersed. They are a spent force and there is no major groundswell of support for them because they were worse than Assad at governance.
Libya is a more difficult problem as it has many more factions and no one to back. I don't know enough about Eritrea and Yemen to make a judgement. I just know that al-Nusra are causing problems in Yemen.
"The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis."
Are you forgetting the Kurds when you claim the above? Can you answer the question I posed yesterday: how do you protect the Kurds from Assad's wrath?
The Kurds and Assad have done a deal long ago in exchange for autonomy of the main kurdish areas, one of the reasons why Turkey seems to be funding ISIS and bombing the kurds.
Turkey has a very old fear of kurds forming their own state because of they are a majority in 1/4 of turkish territory, it couples greatly with Erdogan's islamic ideals, also you can't make a new Ottoman Empire without breaking eggs, in this case Syria.
Yet the Kurds are fighting Assad (in fact, everyone is fighting everyone else). Besides, such deals, as many wars have shown in the past, are very tenuous and transitory.
*If* Assad wins (and I've argued why this is a very bad idea many times passim), then the Kurds in Syria need protecting from him. Quite how we would achieve that is another matter.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
The 'legitimate' armed Syrian opposition (or FSA) are pretty rare flora and fauna now. Vast numbers have been compelled either by horror at what their foreign Islamist chums have been doing to their country, or by the need to survive, to surrender and be pardoned. (snip)
Or killed. Funny how you miss that of your list.
By ISIS. Funny how you refuse to acknowledge how destructive ISIS are in Syria and where they get their money from and their true aim of killing all non-Sunni people.
BREAKING The Independent @Independent 31m31 minutes ago Austria to close borders again after 12,000 refugees enter from Hungary in 48 hours http://ind.pn/1hNc58L
Well done Merkel – Austria’s attempt to implement EU law, holed beneath the waterline.
I imagine Merkel's announcement will not be felt for seveal weeks/months. Once word starts to get back to people in the Middle East and Africa that everyone is welcome they will set off.
I’ve no doubt the position will now get much worse after Merkel’s ham-fisted intervention. Mobile phones will be buzzing between the Hungarian and Syrian border and all points in-between.
Buy stocks in people smugglers. They will never have had it so good...
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
The problem with Bloomberg is that his policies lack a strong base, who is willing to put energy behind a man whose main policy platform is being pro-Wall Street and pro-immigrant which are the 2 most unpopular stances on both sides of the spectrum.
Yet the Kurds are fighting Assad (in fact, everyone is fighting everyone else). Besides, such deals, as many wars have shown in the past, are very tenuous and transitory.
*If* Assad wins (and I've argued why this is a very bad idea many times passim), then the Kurds in Syria need protecting from him. Quite how we would achieve that is another matter.
By cutting a deal. Being grown ups. Acting in the interest of the seven million displaced people, not to assuage your liberal white guilt.
Also, where is the evidence that the Kurds and Assad's forces are fighting?
The polling is going towards Trump for quite some time now, his lead might be a fluke but the trend is favourable towards him. As for HYUFD's assertions that Bloomberg might run as an independent if Trump is the GOP nominee, I see it as possible but not probable, these days though Bloomberg is more popular with democrats than republicans, it's easy to conceive that he might damage Hillary more than Trump if he runs.
But I suggest patience, Trump is a very good trading bet, but no one knows what might happen after Christmas. So far what we know is that americans love TV stars, only 3 candidates out of 17 can connect with the republican voters (Trump, Carson, Cruz), and that voters like authenticity with people who look and talk like them.
Trump is doing a bit better than he was, but given the amount of media exposure he has had (ie more than all the other candidates combined) that is hardly surprising, on average he still trails. His ratings are also appalling with Hispanics, so if Hillary has any sense she will pick a Hispanic VP, that ticket would look like America's future, a Trump ticket a last hurrah for America's past.
I made quite clear that Bloomberg would not run if Hillary is the nominee, I said if Sanders is the Democratic nominee running on an anti Wall Street ticket then Bloomberg would be likely to run on a more fiscally conservative ticket than Sanders, more immigrant friendly than Trump, such a ticket could win
BREAKING The Independent @Independent 31m31 minutes ago Austria to close borders again after 12,000 refugees enter from Hungary in 48 hours http://ind.pn/1hNc58L
Well done Merkel – Austria’s attempt to implement EU law, holed beneath the waterline.
I imagine Merkel's announcement will not be felt for seveal weeks/months. Once word starts to get back to people in the Middle East and Africa that everyone is welcome they will set off.
I’ve no doubt the position will now get much worse after Merkel’s ham-fisted intervention. Mobile phones will be buzzing between the Hungarian and Syrian border and all points in-between.
I wonder how long it takes to travel to the EU. It may be that with the colder weather on the way any surge in immigration will occur next Spring. Right in time for the EU referendum.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
Bring evidence that chlorine was used by Assad and I will listen. So far it seems more likely that chlorine was used by ISIS or al-Nusra, given that it is not a sophisticated chemical weapon, the likes of which Assad has access to.
You were the one banging on about how we should have backed the FSA in 2013 and bombed Assad's position. I disagreed then and I still do.
As for being a grown up, well I think you need to look at the situation of around seven million displaced people and try and think of the best solution to ensure that they are settled back into their homeland safely. That means making the tough decisions, not just putting fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and hoping it all goes away without having to pick a side.
Neither side are worthy of western support, that much has been made clear over the crisis, but we need to pick the side that will ensure minorities and non-Sunni people are protected and not persecuted. Assad may have a woeful record on political dissent, but he was much fairer than ISIS could ever be when it came to minorities such as Jews, Christians and others.
So I ask you, faced with Islamists on one side, and a dictator on the other, who would you pick? Neither is not an answer that grown ups can choose in the face of seven million displaced people.
There are two aspect here, which luckyguy1983 tried to confuse yesterday:
1) The use of sarin via mortar rockets on several occasions in 2013; 2) The continued used of chemical (mainly chlorine) weapons since.
On your first paragraph: international pressure forced Assad to give up his 'complex' chemical weapons such as Sarin. Since then, he has relied on multi-purpose chemicals such as chlorine. So he no longer has access to the complex ones, as you claim in your first paragraph.
As for evidence, what sort of level do you desire? There's plenty of links out there; you have to look at the sources for yourself. Unfortunately proof even you (although not luckyguy) might accept is hard because the UN inspectors were not allowed to apportion blame for the 2013 attacks. That restriction might get lifted for the chlorine attacks, but the situation has sadly moved on since then.
As for the situation in 2013: I stand by what I said, and think events have proven me more right than wrong. I said at the time that the conflict would spread, which it has. I said the use of chemical weapons would become more widespread, which they have.
I would pick neither side, because both approaches are practically and morally reprehensible. We have to find another way. Your Hobson's Choice is ridiculous and sick.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
The problem with Bloomberg is that his policies lack a strong base, who is willing to put energy behind a man whose main policy platform is being pro-Wall Street and pro-immigrant which are the 2 most unpopular stances on both sides of the spectrum.
A lot of suburbanites like Bloomberg's economic policies and the immigrant population in the US is continuing to grow, if the GOP and Democratic parties pick candidates solely appealing to their base independents and Hispanics may look elsewhere
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman. Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
Actually he is both cheap and nasty. But he is very smart, I'll give you that.
I guess I'm just middle class - "rich", in the way Trump is, translates to "cheap" in practice. I can't be bothered to investigate his life but, from what I've heard, "nasty" seems to fit the bill. 'Stupid' - I have no evidence for that - he just seems that way to me.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
Probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, Max, but that's pretty much where I am as well on this. As far as Syria is concerned, "cutting a deal with Assad" has to mean not allowing Assad and his thugs dropping barrel bombs on the population in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and elsewhere.
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
The 'legitimate' armed Syrian opposition (or FSA) are pretty rare flora and fauna now. Vast numbers have been compelled either by horror at what their foreign Islamist chums have been doing to their country, or by the need to survive, to surrender and be pardoned. (snip)
Or killed. Funny how you miss that of your list.
By ISIS. Funny how you refuse to acknowledge how destructive ISIS are in Syria and where they get their money from and their true aim of killing all non-Sunni people.
By Assad's troops as well, and the other rebel groups.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my view. Biden is Hillary's only potential rival mainstream candidate for the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg has no chance of being Democratic nominee, however ironically he could be the first third party president if it is Trump v Sanders. In such a contest Bloomberg could be a real contendor in big states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida and California and Colorado and Virginia
It means military assistance for Assad and bombing ISIS positions so that the Assad forces can push them back on the ground. The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis. The FSA are basically either dead or dispersed. They are a spent force and there is no major groundswell of support for them because they were worse than Assad at governance.
Libya is a more difficult problem as it has many more factions and no one to back. I don't know enough about Eritrea and Yemen to make a judgement. I just know that al-Nusra are causing problems in Yemen.
"The other main anti-Assad force is al-Nusra, another hardline Sunni group who look to execute non-Sunnis."
Are you forgetting the Kurds when you claim the above? Can you answer the question I posed yesterday: how do you protect the Kurds from Assad's wrath?
The Kurds and Assad have done a deal long ago in exchange for autonomy of the main kurdish areas, one of the reasons why Turkey seems to be funding ISIS and bombing the kurds.
Turkey has a very old fear of kurds forming their own state because of they are a majority in 1/4 of turkish territory, it couples greatly with Erdogan's islamic ideals, also you can't make a new Ottoman Empire without breaking eggs, in this case Syria.
Yet the Kurds are fighting Assad (in fact, everyone is fighting everyone else). Besides, such deals, as many wars have shown in the past, are very tenuous and transitory.
*If* Assad wins (and I've argued why this is a very bad idea many times passim), then the Kurds in Syria need protecting from him. Quite how we would achieve that is another matter.
The kurds have already made a deal with Assad many years ago so don't worry about them.
As for deals, I remember the yugoslavian case, after Lord Owen made a mess of it Milosevic and Tudman made a deal to partition Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia also for Serbia to partition Macedonia with Greece but the americans didn't like the idea of partitions and annexations in order to solve territorial disputes (they are very idealists on those subjects, that's why they are in such a trouble in Ukraine). Besides Bill Clinton needed a war to bury the Paula Jones story, which was inspiration for the "Wag the Dog" movie.
History is full of examples of leaders making a mess because of their obsessions either with order or idealism or sex. It's best to keep those things out of foreign affairs, all the great diplomats like Kissinger, Bismark, Talleyrand, Mazarin, Richelieu had no problem doing deals with their worst enemies at any time.
There are two aspect here, which luckyguy1983 tried to confuse yesterday:
1) The use of sarin via mortar rockets on several occasions in 2013; 2) The continued used of chemical (mainly chlorine) weapons since.
On your first paragraph: international pressure forced Assad to give up his 'complex' chemical weapons such as Sarin. Since then, he has relied on multi-purpose chemicals such as chlorine. So he no longer has access to the complex ones, as you claim in your first paragraph.
As for evidence, what sort of level do you desire? There's plenty of links out there; you have to look at the sources for yourself. Unfortunately proof even you (although not luckyguy) might accept is hard because the UN inspectors were not allowed to apportion blame for the 2013 attacks. That restriction might get lifted for the chlorine attacks, but the situation has sadly moved on since then.
As for the situation in 2013: I stand by what I said, and think events have proven me more right than wrong. I said at the time that the conflict would spread, which it has. I said the use of chemical weapons would become more widespread, which they have.
I would pick neither side, because both approaches are practically and morally reprehensible. We have to find another way. Your Hobson's Choice is ridiculous and sick.
So no apology. Fair enough.
Why would I apologise, I have not mischaracterised anything you said, it just makes for uncomfortable reading because it is almost ISIS/al-Nusra apologist level, though not as bad as other stuff I have seen written.
Picking neither is not an option when there are 7m people who are displaced from their homes, living in intolerable situations, many of them sick and in danger of catching diseases.
You would say to those 7m, sorry, Britain can't help because we can sully our moral standing, please accept our sincerest apologies, I hope that keeps you warm at night and keeps the diseases away.
O/T The Tour Championship is coming up in a couple of weeks, so it's time for me to get my traditional 2 pairs of khaki pants, as I do for every tournament I marshal.
Haggar has a Labor Day sale this weekend, with 50% off, I have a coupon for an extra 15% off, with a further 10% discount for over 55s. Guess where I'm going this afternoon?
Two things I'll never run out of are zip up jackets and golf shirts. (Every tournament marshals are given at least one golf shirt and a zip up jacket.They are usually either Polo or Nike.)
I have a great Trump story but I am thinking of how it can be sufficiently anonymised for publication and probably also waiting for some lagershed to pass.
It doesn't make him see particularly Presidential but then, he isn't.
Has anyone told them that solo, able-bodied men don't register at all on our Housing Departments' radar? They'll probably be swelling the ranks of the street dwellers, won't they?
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman. Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
Actually he is both cheap and nasty. But he is very smart, I'll give you that.
I guess I'm just middle class - "rich", in the way Trump is, translates to "cheap" in practice. I can't be bothered to investigate his life but, from what I've heard, "nasty" seems to fit the bill. 'Stupid' - I have no evidence for that - he just seems that way to me.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
Well I certainly won't invite you to any of my tea parties, you sound like a real drip.
Yet the Kurds are fighting Assad (in fact, everyone is fighting everyone else). Besides, such deals, as many wars have shown in the past, are very tenuous and transitory.
*If* Assad wins (and I've argued why this is a very bad idea many times passim), then the Kurds in Syria need protecting from him. Quite how we would achieve that is another matter.
By cutting a deal. Being grown ups. Acting in the interest of the seven million displaced people, not to assuage your liberal white guilt.
Also, where is the evidence that the Kurds and Assad's forces are fighting?
What we have are a bunch of groups, some with shifting allegiances, who look firstly at the tactical, then the strategic. They do deals which are broken, and then do more deals. That follows for Assad as much as everyone else.
How would you 'cut a deal' with Assad, who is already beholden to Russia and Iran?
And drop the 'liberal white guilt' rubbish. You are the one who was against action in 2013, yet is now wanting to deal with Assad.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my view. Biden is Hillary's only potential rival mainstream candidate for the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg has no chance of being Democratic nominee, however ironically he could be the first third party president if it is Trump v Sanders. In such a contest Bloomberg could be a real contendor in big states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida and California and Colorado and Virginia
Bloomberg has no chance, he will instead become either the prime target of everything that's wrong with America by both sides or he will be ignored as Trump vs Sanders is far more media savvy.
And besides Bloomberg has no voters or fans, even people in New York were so bored of him and his style and policies that they voted for the most left wing candidate available as his replacement. At best he can portray himself as a continuity candidate but very few want continuity after decades of the same.
Bloomberg is a HUGE nanny state guy. He tried to legislate on everything from the size of sodas to the size of portions in NYC restaurants to what could be in school vending machines and so on and so on.
I have a great Trump story but I am thinking of how it can be sufficiently anonymised for publication and probably also waiting for some lagershed to pass.
It doesn't make him see particularly Presidential but then, he isn't.
Whatever you have it's less jaw dropping that this:
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman. Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
Actually he is both cheap and nasty. But he is very smart, I'll give you that.
I guess I'm just middle class - "rich", in the way Trump is, translates to "cheap" in practice. I can't be bothered to investigate his life but, from what I've heard, "nasty" seems to fit the bill. 'Stupid' - I have no evidence for that - he just seems that way to me.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
'Rich' translates to 'Rich'. If you want cheap then you're looking at Tiger Woods. He doesn't tip at restaurants.That's 'cheap'.
Trump by all accounts is a very generous man. Not 'cheap' at all.
Just because you don't like his policies is no reason to demean him.
Bloomberg is a HUGE nanny state guy. He tried to legislate on everything from the size of sodas to the size of portions in NYC restaurants to what could be in school vending machines and so on and so on.
Never order americans how much soda they can drink. That's one of the reasons why he hasn't got a chance.
What we have are a bunch of groups, some with shifting allegiances, who look firstly at the tactical, then the strategic. They do deals which are broken, and then do more deals. That follows for Assad as much as everyone else.
How would you 'cut a deal' with Assad, who is already beholden to Russia and Iran?
And drop the 'liberal white guilt' rubbish. You are the one who was against action in 2013, yet is now wanting to deal with Assad.
I was against the 2013 interventions because it was patently obvious that backing a weak group like the FSA would open the door for Islamists to take over the whole country once Assad fell. I think that view has been vindicated (see Libya).
You cut a deal by getting the major players around the table, cut out Erdogan and sit down, hammer out amnesty for Assad in return for autonomy for the Kurds.
Again, this is what grown ups do. Doing deals with people you don't like for the good of 7m displaced people is what real leadership is about. If it sullies our moral standing, then sleep easy in the knowledge that millions of people are going to benefit from a stable country to live in and we can help them rebuild their infrastructure.
There are two aspect here, which luckyguy1983 tried to confuse yesterday:
1) The use of sarin via mortar rockets on several occasions in 2013; 2) The continued used of chemical (mainly chlorine) weapons since.
On your first paragraph: international pressure forced Assad to give up his 'complex' chemical weapons such as Sarin. Since then, he has relied on multi-purpose chemicals such as chlorine. So he no longer has access to the complex ones, as you claim in your first paragraph.
As for evidence, what sort of level do you desire? There's plenty of links out there; you have to look at the sources for yourself. Unfortunately proof even you (although not luckyguy) might accept is hard because the UN inspectors were not allowed to apportion blame for the 2013 attacks. That restriction might get lifted for the chlorine attacks, but the situation has sadly moved on since then.
As for the situation in 2013: I stand by what I said, and think events have proven me more right than wrong. I said at the time that the conflict would spread, which it has. I said the use of chemical weapons would become more widespread, which they have.
I would pick neither side, because both approaches are practically and morally reprehensible. We have to find another way. Your Hobson's Choice is ridiculous and sick.
So no apology. Fair enough.
Why would I apologise, I have not mischaracterised anything you said, it just makes for uncomfortable reading because it is almost ISIS/al-Nusra apologist level, though not as bad as other stuff I have seen written.
Picking neither is not an option when there are 7m people who are displaced from their homes, living in intolerable situations, many of them sick and in danger of catching diseases.
You would say to those 7m, sorry, Britain can't help because we can sully our moral standing, please accept our sincerest apologies, I hope that keeps you warm at night and keeps the diseases away.
Show me one place - just one place - where I have in any way supported IS, or apologised for them. Go on. I am nowhere near 'ISIS/al-Nusra apologist level'; I hate ISIS with a passion.
Again, you should really withdraw that. Not supporting 'your' dictator does not mean I support his enemies.
Whereas you support Assad. And have, from your comments today, all along. It could be said you are being an apologist for Assad's murder of his own civilians by chemical weapons. Now, I know you think that didn't happen, but I suggest that's your problem: I suggest you look at yesterday's thread and a certain contributor's posts.
What would I say to those 7 million people: "Sorry that our country didn't help you when we had the best chance, back in 2013."
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my v
Bloomberg has no chance, he will instead become either the prime target of everything that's wrong with America by both sides or he will be ignored as Trump vs Sanders is far more media savvy.
And besides Bloomberg has no voters or fans, even people in New York were so bored of him and his style and policies that they voted for the most left wing candidate available as his replacement. At best he can portray himself as a continuity candidate but very few want continuity after decades of the same.
No chance? He is richer than Trump was an extremely competent Mayor of New York City, a City bigger than many US states (whereas Sanders and Trump have zero executive experience) and is popular with independents and minorities. Bloomberg won the New York Mayoral election 3 times, twice as a Republican in a Democratic city. He is more fiscally conservative than Obama and certainly Sanders, more immigrant friendly than Trump. If the GOP and Democrats both decide to ignore swing voters and pick candidates to only appease the base Bloomberg has his chance, he could sweep the swing states, the West coast and the North East, leaving Trump a rump of the deep South and border and plain states and Sanders, a few liberal states in New England, the Upper MidWest and Pacific North West.
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman. Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
Actually he is both cheap and nasty. But he is very smart, I'll give you that.
I guess I'm just middle class - "rich", in the way Trump is, translates to "cheap" in practice. I can't be bothered to investigate his life but, from what I've heard, "nasty" seems to fit the bill. 'Stupid' - I have no evidence for that - he just seems that way to me.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
'Rich' translates to 'Rich'. If you want cheap then you're looking at Tiger Woods. He doesn't tip at restaurants.That's 'cheap'.
Trump by all accounts is a very generous man. Not 'cheap' at all.
Just because you don't like his policies is no reason to demean him.
Trump is smart when it comes to making money. He is not so smart when it comes to practical politics. In Trump v Salmond, who do you think will come out the winner?
Just because someone knows how to make money does not fit them to lead a country. In some ways they may be the last sort of person you want, as they are likely to be unused to making decisions democratically, and accustomed to bullying to get their own way, and not much inclined to consider the needs of those who they have used / trampled on / passed over on their way to making a fortune.
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman. Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
Actually he is both cheap and nasty. But he is very smart, I'll give you that.
I guess I'm just middle class - "rich", in the way Trump is, translates to "cheap" in practice. I can't be bothered to investigate his life but, from what I've heard, "nasty" seems to fit the bill. 'Stupid' - I have no evidence for that - he just seems that way to me.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
'Rich' translates to 'Rich'. If you want cheap then you're looking at Tiger Woods. He doesn't tip at restaurants.That's 'cheap'.
Trump by all accounts is a very generous man. Not 'cheap' at all.
Just because you don't like his policies is no reason to demean him.
Hi Tim, I like your support. BTW, you still think that Spieth is in the frame?
Bloomberg is a HUGE nanny state guy. He tried to legislate on everything from the size of sodas to the size of portions in NYC restaurants to what could be in school vending machines and so on and so on.
If you really loathe the nanny state I imagine you will already be signed up to Trump anyway, soccer Moms may be a bit more concerned their children eat healthily
I have a great Trump story but I am thinking of how it can be sufficiently anonymised for publication and probably also waiting for some lagershed to pass.
It doesn't make him see particularly Presidential but then, he isn't.
Whatever you have it's less jaw dropping that this:
Show me one place - just one place - where I have in any way supported IS, or apologised for them. Go on. I am nowhere near 'ISIS/al-Nusra apologist level'; I hate ISIS with a passion.
Again, you should really withdraw that. Not supporting 'your' dictator does not mean I support his enemies.
Whereas you support Assad. And have, from your comments today, all along. It could be said you are being an apologist for Assad's murder of his own civilians by chemical weapons. Now, I know you think that didn't happen, but I suggest that's your problem: I suggest you look at yesterday's thread and a certain contributor's posts.
What would I say to those 7 million people: "Sorry that our country didn't help you when we had the best chance, back in 2013."
And yet you would have Britain stand by and let them ravage the north of Syria, standing on the sidelines telling everyone how terrible they are and not doing anything about it despite having the capability. I guess it isn't apologist level, I apologise for that. Maybe just stupid and callous.
There was never an opportunity in 2013, the FSA would have been quickly toppled by ISIS if we had backed them to remove Assad. Look at what is happening in Libya, apply that to Syria and add steroids.
I have never supported Assad, only stated that of the parties available to help 7m people, he is the least worst and being responsible means helping those people even if the cost to our own moral standing is extremely high, we must take the necessary steps. I personally view Assad as a reprehensible character and would not hesitate to remove him if there were a credible alternative that didn't want to commit mass murder and genocide of non-Sunni people.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are ay quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my v
Bloomberg has no chance, he will instead become either the prime target of everything that's wrong with America by both sides or he will be ignored as Trump vs Sanders is far more media savvy.
And besides Bloomberg has no voters or fans, even people in New York were so bored of him and his style and policies that they voted for the most left wing candidate available as his replacement. At best he can portray himself as a continuity candidate but very few want continuity after decades of the same.
No chance? He is richer than Trump was an extremely competent Mayor of New York City, a City bigger than many US states (whereas Sanders and Trump have zero executive experience) and is popular with independents and minorities. Bloomberg won the New York Mayoral election 3 times, twice as a Republican in a Democratic city. He is more fiscally conservative than Obama and certainly Sanders, more immigrant friendly than Trump. If the GOP and Democrats both decide to ignore swing voters and pick candidates to only appease the base Bloomberg has his chance, he could sweep the swing states, the West coast and the North East, leaving Trump a rump of the deep South and border and plain states and Sanders, a few liberal states in New England, the Upper MidWest and Pacific North West.
It's all right for a candidate to try and win swing voters, but relying only on swing voters with no base is a strategy of sure defeat, at present he won't even win N.Y. because people there had gotten bored with him. I can describe Bloomberg as a paper candidate, he looks good on paper but he's been around for too long and annoyed too many voters, the regulation of food and drinks that he did as Mayor would definitely sink him as americans love food and drinks.
Regarding Bloomberg running, it is doubtful he would run as an independent. He has met several times with Democratic officials, and several senior NY Democratic folks are urging him to run, as are a number of big NY banks, which must be galling to Hillary.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
Bloomberg has zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination, the fact Bernie Sanders is already leading the Democratic primary in NH tells you that, a billionaire, fiscal pragmatist who opened the GOP convention in 2004 is not going to be the Democratic nominee when even Hillary is facing a battle. If he runs it will be as an independent
It's early days - it all depends on what happens to Hillary. Stranger things have happened.
If Hillary goes down and is replaced by Sanders, not Biden, and Trump wins the GOP nomination then Bloomberg goes independent in my view. Biden is Hillary's only potential rival mainstream candidate for the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg has no chance of being Democratic nominee, however ironically he could be the first third party president if it is Trump v Sanders. In such a contest Bloomberg could be a real contendor in big states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida and California and Colorado and Virginia
If Hillary goes down - which I guess means either her numbers tank completely or the FBI indicts - then all bets are off.
The Democrats will be in full panic mode. The pressure on Biden will increase exponentially. Plus they may well seek out others now underneath the radar in case Biden can't or won't run. Sanders is a nice diversion, but not an option. It's entirely possible the eventual candidate may be someone we are not talking about today. The scenario is completely unpredictable, not to mention unprecedented.
Biden's problem, like Hillary's, is that either will be painted as an Obama third term, which in the absence of Obama himself, is an electoral liability.
Comments
Yes, by all means, eliminate IS but there are other anti-Assad forces in Syria fighting IS with whom we should be able to do business and who we should be supporting as part of a political settlement to end the overall Syrian civil war.
My fear is Assad and his Russian hardware are going to attempt to return to the status quo ante which, while it may be welcome in ending IS isn't wholly beneficial for those Syrian opposition forces, not allied to IS, but who want to see Assad removed.
I do agree we need to prevent the Syrian Diaspora but we also need to prevent the Libyan Diaspora, the Eritrean Diaspora and the Yemeni Diaspora. A successful resolution in Syria might be a blueprint for how to deal with failed or failing states in the future.
Next year is the 50th anniversary of my going to the top (102nd floor) of the Empire State Building, and climbing to the light on the Statue of Liberty. There was no World Trade Center then.
But no action will be taken....
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/latest/headlines/2015/9/mercedes-under-investigation-over-starting-tyre-pressures.html
The other aspect is that there are no doubt, within the refugee camps and elsewhere, Syrians with skills we can use, doctors, engineers and the like. There will be a temptation when we look to take "our share" of the refugees to prioritise those people and rightly so.
However, these are the very people who will be crucial in rebuilding Syria once the fighting stops and peace returns - IF we invest in them by bringing them to the UK and employing them in Britain, I also think we need to continue that investment by encouraging them, once conditions allow, to return to Syria to lead the reconstruction and aiding that reconstruction process as part of a (hopefully) regional and global effort.
But unfortunately, Yorkshire forgot the old adage that you should never lengthen your batting at the expense of your bowling. Poor team selection and it's not as though the extra batsmen actually scored the runs they should have done anyway. Hard to imagine Brooks and Sidebottom would not have made life much more difficult for Gloucestershire.
I think that throughout the West, there's a big constituency for social right/economic left politics.
Libya is a more difficult problem as it has many more factions and no one to back. I don't know enough about Eritrea and Yemen to make a judgement. I just know that al-Nusra are causing problems in Yemen.
They were very very good in a teeny-weeny Christina Aguilara way.
EDIT: I think this explains the full story in grim detail:
http://www.cricket.com.au/news/aaron-finch-replaces-david-warner-australia-odi-one-day-squad-england/2015-09-06
I rather have an irrational belief that Hilary will make a good president. She's clever, and all the rest of it, but in the heady mix of politics she still has a great smile. I think it's very unfortunate for her that Obama arrived when he did. On balance I don't quite see her getting to the White House, however I think that perhaps she might see a female President. Fiorina this time is a small chance.
It's a reaction to almost 7 years of the Obama administration, whose policies now have almost 3 out of 4 Americans saying they think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
In addition they gave Republicans control of the Senate last year. Even they understood that the vote was not so much an endorsement of Republicans as a complete repudiation of Obama and the democrats, who had kept the Senate almost inactive for 6 years with Harry Reid letting very few bills come to the floor.
With the Republicans in control of both houses they wanted Washington to start working again.
So far the Republicans have signally failed to do that.
Sanders appeal is essentially an anti-Hillary protest vote.
Trump's achilles heel is that at times he has been a Democrat, a Republican, and has been on both sides of most issues.
But then in terms of issues so has Hillary. She's actually running against some of her husband's policies now.
Do you still think, as you indicated yesterday, that Assad didn't use chemical weapons in 2013?
Also: do you retract what you said yesterday about me wrt your claim that I 'bang on about how wonderful the opposition is' ?
No?
As for dropping bombs on people, how else does one fight a civil war when your enemies are sheltering themselves in mosques, schools and hospitals?
I wonder how the circle can be squared. It seems the chasm is very wide.
As for HYUFD's assertions that Bloomberg might run as an independent if Trump is the GOP nominee, I see it as possible but not probable, these days though Bloomberg is more popular with democrats than republicans, it's easy to conceive that he might damage Hillary more than Trump if he runs.
But I suggest patience, Trump is a very good trading bet, but no one knows what might happen after Christmas. So far what we know is that americans love TV stars, only 3 candidates out of 17 can connect with the republican voters (Trump, Carson, Cruz), and that voters like authenticity with people who look and talk like them.
Are you forgetting the Kurds when you claim the above? Can you answer the question I posed yesterday: how do you protect the Kurds from Assad's wrath?
And just typing this it strikes me that something is amiss with the picture we have.
I love it when the talent guests are better than the B rate *stars* on the panel. Three superb singers/groups in just that first show.
I've got all of America's Got Talent lined up next.
You were the one banging on about how we should have backed the FSA in 2013 and bombed Assad's position. I disagreed then and I still do.
As for being a grown up, well I think you need to look at the situation of around seven million displaced people and try and think of the best solution to ensure that they are settled back into their homeland safely. That means making the tough decisions, not just putting fingers in your ears and closing your eyes and hoping it all goes away without having to pick a side.
Neither side are worthy of western support, that much has been made clear over the crisis, but we need to pick the side that will ensure minorities and non-Sunni people are protected and not persecuted. Assad may have a woeful record on political dissent, but he was much fairer than ISIS could ever be when it came to minorities such as Jews, Christians and others.
So I ask you, faced with Islamists on one side, and a dictator on the other, who would you pick? Neither is not an answer that grown ups can choose in the face of seven million displaced people.
Turkey has a very old fear of kurds forming their own state because of they are a majority in 1/4 of turkish territory, it couples greatly with Erdogan's islamic ideals, also you can't make a new Ottoman Empire without breaking eggs, in this case Syria.
Previously you could give them $100m and send them off to the East or Latin America or Switzerland. Now they have no incentive to go quietly.
In a similar manner, the strategic and tactical situation in Syria has changed in the last two years.
Rightly or wrongly, I think only a minority of Westerners think they're profiting from globalization.
The Democratic party is getting extremely nervous as Clinton's campaign falters and the email scandal continues to roll on (there were even new revelations this weekend) and will do so until the end of January at least, and let's not forget the FBI investigation bubbling away quietly in the background.
out to work everyday..and in the future their kids will have to contend with a very strident religious group.The Professor from Oxford just on SKY TV was going on about how we should
embrace all of these people and welcome them into our community..she has no idea that a Syrian family being given a house pushes a British family further down the list.. the family that is paying taxes for a foreign family to jump ahead of them in the queue...this is a recipe for social unrest and may just burst the banks.
Trump is just cheap, nasty, and stupid.
Mr Trump is not cheap; he is rich
Mr Trump is not nasty; he is a businessman.
Mr Trump is far from stupid; he runs four profit making organisations.
So whats your beef Omnium; other than he is a well known capitalist entrepreneur?
*If* Assad wins (and I've argued why this is a very bad idea many times passim), then the Kurds in Syria need protecting from him. Quite how we would achieve that is another matter.
Also, where is the evidence that the Kurds and Assad's forces are fighting?
I made quite clear that Bloomberg would not run if Hillary is the nominee, I said if Sanders is the Democratic nominee running on an anti Wall Street ticket then Bloomberg would be likely to run on a more fiscally conservative ticket than Sanders, more immigrant friendly than Trump, such a ticket could win
1) The use of sarin via mortar rockets on several occasions in 2013;
2) The continued used of chemical (mainly chlorine) weapons since.
On your first paragraph: international pressure forced Assad to give up his 'complex' chemical weapons such as Sarin. Since then, he has relied on multi-purpose chemicals such as chlorine. So he no longer has access to the complex ones, as you claim in your first paragraph.
As for evidence, what sort of level do you desire? There's plenty of links out there; you have to look at the sources for yourself. Unfortunately proof even you (although not luckyguy) might accept is hard because the UN inspectors were not allowed to apportion blame for the 2013 attacks. That restriction might get lifted for the chlorine attacks, but the situation has sadly moved on since then.
As for the situation in 2013: I stand by what I said, and think events have proven me more right than wrong. I said at the time that the conflict would spread, which it has. I said the use of chemical weapons would become more widespread, which they have.
I would pick neither side, because both approaches are practically and morally reprehensible. We have to find another way. Your Hobson's Choice is ridiculous and sick.
So no apology. Fair enough.
If you got a letter through the post saying you could meet person X for some tea, who would you accept? Trump, for me, just isn't on the radar.
As for deals, I remember the yugoslavian case, after Lord Owen made a mess of it Milosevic and Tudman made a deal to partition Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia also for Serbia to partition Macedonia with Greece but the americans didn't like the idea of partitions and annexations in order to solve territorial disputes (they are very idealists on those subjects, that's why they are in such a trouble in Ukraine).
Besides Bill Clinton needed a war to bury the Paula Jones story, which was inspiration for the "Wag the Dog" movie.
History is full of examples of leaders making a mess because of their obsessions either with order or idealism or sex. It's best to keep those things out of foreign affairs, all the great diplomats like Kissinger, Bismark, Talleyrand, Mazarin, Richelieu had no problem doing deals with their worst enemies at any time.
Picking neither is not an option when there are 7m people who are displaced from their homes, living in intolerable situations, many of them sick and in danger of catching diseases.
You would say to those 7m, sorry, Britain can't help because we can sully our moral standing, please accept our sincerest apologies, I hope that keeps you warm at night and keeps the diseases away.
Haggar has a Labor Day sale this weekend, with 50% off, I have a coupon for an extra 15% off, with a further 10% discount for over 55s. Guess where I'm going this afternoon?
Two things I'll never run out of are zip up jackets and golf shirts. (Every tournament marshals are given at least one golf shirt and a zip up jacket.They are usually either Polo or Nike.)
It doesn't make him see particularly Presidential but then, he isn't.
He actually called a woman onstage at a press conference the other day to confirm his hair was real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava_Revolution
What we have are a bunch of groups, some with shifting allegiances, who look firstly at the tactical, then the strategic. They do deals which are broken, and then do more deals. That follows for Assad as much as everyone else.
How would you 'cut a deal' with Assad, who is already beholden to Russia and Iran?
And drop the 'liberal white guilt' rubbish. You are the one who was against action in 2013, yet is now wanting to deal with Assad.
And besides Bloomberg has no voters or fans, even people in New York were so bored of him and his style and policies that they voted for the most left wing candidate available as his replacement. At best he can portray himself as a continuity candidate but very few want continuity after decades of the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
Trump by all accounts is a very generous man. Not 'cheap' at all.
Just because you don't like his policies is no reason to demean him.
That's one of the reasons why he hasn't got a chance.
You cut a deal by getting the major players around the table, cut out Erdogan and sit down, hammer out amnesty for Assad in return for autonomy for the Kurds.
Again, this is what grown ups do. Doing deals with people you don't like for the good of 7m displaced people is what real leadership is about. If it sullies our moral standing, then sleep easy in the knowledge that millions of people are going to benefit from a stable country to live in and we can help them rebuild their infrastructure.
Again, you should really withdraw that. Not supporting 'your' dictator does not mean I support his enemies.
Whereas you support Assad. And have, from your comments today, all along. It could be said you are being an apologist for Assad's murder of his own civilians by chemical weapons. Now, I know you think that didn't happen, but I suggest that's your problem: I suggest you look at yesterday's thread and a certain contributor's posts.
What would I say to those 7 million people: "Sorry that our country didn't help you when we had the best chance, back in 2013."
Just because someone knows how to make money does not fit them to lead a country. In some ways they may be the last sort of person you want, as they are likely to be unused to making decisions democratically, and accustomed to bullying to get their own way, and not much inclined to consider the needs of those who they have used / trampled on / passed over on their way to making a fortune.
There was never an opportunity in 2013, the FSA would have been quickly toppled by ISIS if we had backed them to remove Assad. Look at what is happening in Libya, apply that to Syria and add steroids.
I have never supported Assad, only stated that of the parties available to help 7m people, he is the least worst and being responsible means helping those people even if the cost to our own moral standing is extremely high, we must take the necessary steps. I personally view Assad as a reprehensible character and would not hesitate to remove him if there were a credible alternative that didn't want to commit mass murder and genocide of non-Sunni people.
I can describe Bloomberg as a paper candidate, he looks good on paper but he's been around for too long and annoyed too many voters, the regulation of food and drinks that he did as Mayor would definitely sink him as americans love food and drinks.
The Democrats will be in full panic mode. The pressure on Biden will increase exponentially. Plus they may well seek out others now underneath the radar in case Biden can't or won't run. Sanders is a nice diversion, but not an option. It's entirely possible the eventual candidate may be someone we are not talking about today. The scenario is completely unpredictable, not to mention unprecedented.
Biden's problem, like Hillary's, is that either will be painted as an Obama third term, which in the absence of Obama himself, is an electoral liability.