Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open

If you’re a lurker, why not delurk tonight, it certainly is an interesting time in UK politics, with Syria’s use of weapons of, Mass Destruction,

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Morris Dancer, note article 9
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FPT @Scott_P I feel dirty now.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Nothing on Miley Cyrus TSE ?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Up to 70 Tory MPs 'not convinced' by coalition case for Syria strike
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/28/70-tories-not-convinced-syria-strike
  • TGOHF said:

    Nothing on Miley Cyrus TSE ?

    Just added link 22

  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Labour forcing Cameron to think twice about launching into another dodgy middle east war.

    Bearing in mind their current (election winning) position is built on 2010 Lab and Lib Dem voters, they haven't done themselves any harm tonight, to say the least.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    The #22 Bradley Manning story made me laugh. Excellent work by Fox News mocking that nonsense.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @tim It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that David Cameron now has a Get Out Of Jail Free card, regardless of what now happens in Syria.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. Eagles, Mr. Blair (of article 9) is incorrect. It was the Numidians who aggressively expanded into Carthaginian territory over many years, I believe, with Rome acting as 'arbitrater' but in fact always on the side of Numidia. When Carthage finally stood up for itself Rome declared war (which, at that stage, was like a pack of wolves picking on a puppy).

    The Romans demanded such a level of submission that it was they who forced the Carthaginians to war, not the reverse.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Nothing on Miley Cyrus TSE ?

    Just added link 22

    Boom. Pb.com is on the down low... :)
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    This is getting good..order more popcorn and watch Labourr hit the wall tomorrow...meanwhile the body count goes on.
  • Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. Eagles, Mr. Blair (of article 9) is incorrect. It was the Numidians who aggressively expanded into Carthaginian territory over many years, I believe, with Rome acting as 'arbitrater' but in fact always on the side of Numidia. When Carthage finally stood up for itself Rome declared war (which, at that stage, was like a pack of wolves picking on a puppy).

    The Romans demanded such a level of submission that it was they who forced the Carthaginians to war, not the reverse.

    Why was Carthage like a puppy? Because Hannibal lost the second Punic War.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hague coming up on Sky...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    So what are people's answers to the Syrian problem? Given the negotiating table has got rather bloody over the last two years, how is the problem fixed.

    And allied to that, how do we make it known that use of chemical and biological weapons will not be tolerated?
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nothing on Miley Cyrus TSE ?

    Just added link 22

    Boom. Pb.com is on the down low... :)
    She'll always be Hannah Montana to me

    oh and Billy Ray Cyrus' daughter
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sky: Labour 'going wobbly' on this has highlighted international divisions. Obama may go it alone...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    edited August 2013
    I fear it has been increasingly clear during the day that the US has decided to use force and decided to do it soon. Probably by the weekend. The only way that Cameron could get on board and play a part was getting sanction from Parliament tomorrow.

    Well now he can't. The US will almost certainly go ahead without us (our contribution is frankly a lot more political than military) and we will sit and watch. Awkward for our leadership who like to be a part of the Obama team but hey ho.

    What we will see all too plainly and uncomfortably is what bit players we are on the world scene. As in Iraq the US will not be too bothered if our UN resolution succeeds or fails. As in Iraq the US will do what they wish and the reservations of those (like me) who are unpersuaded in this country shall make no difference at all to the outcome.

    Cameron has made a bit of a fool of himself about this but on balance I agree with antifrank. Labour with their party political stance have done him a favour. A major back bench rebellion on this from his own party would have been a lot more damaging. As Labour play party politics that will become less likely. In the meantime we do not have pointless blood on our hands.
  • Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @tim If the evidence comes later and the public wants to act, David Cameron can say "I told you so, and innocent lives have been lost as a result of Labour's cowardice."

    But in practice, it's now or never.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Shouldn't the thread be called Prime Minister Miliband ?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hague looks as sick as a pig....
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    It's only a matter of time before we have to put boots on the ground in Syria IMO.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    @tim It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that David Cameron now has a Get Out Of Jail Free card, regardless of what now happens in Syria.

    You're assuming that Labour, the Lib Dems and Tory backbenchers won't vote for military action when the proof of the chemical attacks is there?
    I doubt that very much.

    The problem is the conditions and level of proof demanded by Carl on the previous thread is so high as to be virtually unachievable. I bet many people will think in exactly the same way. If they are achieved, it will probably only be after many months of deliberation and negotiation with Russia and others.

    For one thing, it looks very likely that the UN inspectors will say whether or not chemical weapons were used, but not who used them. That means any such evidence would have to come from the security services of the very countries that want action, and many will not believe it, especially after the Iraq debacle.

    Then there are Russian (and to a lesser extent Chinese) desires to be placated to even get it through the UNSC.

    And in the meantime, the killing continues.

    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Not persuaded by the partisan comments either way - it's a difficult issue and there's more than one reasonable position. The outcome so far is reminiscent of the pre-Iraq phase when we desperately tried to get a UN resolution. Failing that we went ahead anyway, which I think is what will happen here, to no obviously good effect.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It's amusing watching tim the peacenik. If Tony Blair were Prime Minister, he'd be pressing the red buttons and riding the nukes.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited August 2013

    So what are people's answers to the Syrian problem? Given the negotiating table has got rather bloody over the last two years, how is the problem fixed.

    And allied to that, how do we make it known that use of chemical and biological weapons will not be tolerated?

    Bomb both sides.

    edit: or neither
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    antifrank said:

    @tim If the evidence comes later and the public wants to act, David Cameron can say "I told you so, and innocent lives have been lost as a result of Labour's cowardice."


    But in practice, it's now or never.

    Total rubbish now or never.

    It took years to act over Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons.

    It took years to act regarding the Yugoslav civil war atrocities

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2013



    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?

    We don't. The Syrians sort it out themselves. Assad wins (he's already all but won the civil war).

    Problem solved. It's not rocket-science...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, I know that you mostly do that, though I do try and correct you for the sake of historical accuracy.

    I'm afraid I missed the Crassus reference. Not been around too much.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Yorkcity If we're not going to act when we see film of children being subjected to chemical weapons, it's not going to happen.

    That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited August 2013

    Mr. Eagles, I know that you mostly do that, though I do try and correct you for the sake of historical accuracy.

    I'm afraid I missed the Crassus reference. Not been around too much.

    For the Western leaders looking to intervene are hoping that they aren't following in the footsteps of Marcus Licinius Crassus whose political ambitions ended as he sought military glory whilst he was Governor of Syria.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

    Pfsh, modern history would be a reference to the late-19th century British-Egyptian war under Gladstone.

  • corporeal said:

    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

    Pfsh, modern history would be a reference to the late-19th century British-Egyptian war under Gladstone.

    I did manage to blame both Asquith and Clegg for WW1 and Syria today.

    Bloody messes always happens when the Liberals are in government
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, that is a sound reference. It is certainly the case that Crassus political career saw a sudden and significant decline after the Battle of Carrhae.
  • Mr. Eagles, that is a sound reference. It is certainly the case that Crassus political career saw a sudden and significant decline after the Battle of Carrhae.

    I look at the positives, it ended the first triumvirate and ultimately allowed Caesar to become Dictator and confirm to all that he was the greatest General in history.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hague again...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @tim I was right about Kosovo and Bosnia, and remain so. Kosovo was arguably a worse foreign policy decision than Iraq (though on a smaller scale), which really is saying something. Its effects are deferred but not finished.

    I haven't made my mind up about Syria, which is a clusterf*ck of wrong options.

    First Do No Harm is always the best motto. No one has yet identified a good course of action and articulated it. I'm open to persuasion, but highly sceptical.

    But in party political terms, Ed Miliband's position on Syria is far more dangerous than David Cameron's.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    corporeal said:

    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

    Pfsh, modern history would be a reference to the late-19th century British-Egyptian war under Gladstone.

    I did manage to blame both Asquith and Clegg for WW1 and Syria today.

    Bloody messes always happens when the Liberals are in government
    The National Government of 1931-40 under MacDonald then Chamberlain also contained Liberal ministers (albeit reducing in the later part of that).
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hague: 'We will now proceed on a consensual basis.'

    So you wanted to drag us to war, otherwise?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, if you think that Caesar was a better general than Alexander than you're mad as a mongoose.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    antifrank said:

    @Yorkcity If we're not going to act when we see film of children being subjected to chemical weapons, it's not going to happen.


    That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.

    It might be .

    However the now or never is totally risible.

    Its ramping up the rhetoric for a quick fix, with no strategy beyond saving Obamas red line.


  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    'Making every effort that the British parliament will unite'...
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Hague sounds completely flat.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT
    stodge said:

    AveryLP said:


    Quite clearly drafted for an international audience with the United Nations Security Council and its Members in focus.

    Almost nothing on military action.

    A vote in favour by Parliament will bolster the UK's cause at the UN.

    Cameron and Hague's aim is to give the permanent members of the UNSC every reasonable opportunity to avoid the need for military intervention.

    It is all up to Russia and China now.

    The crux though is that IF the UN Inspectors are unequivocal in saying that chemical weapons were used, the prohibition of such weapons under international law is clear and there is room for punitive action against any and all users of such weapons.

    That doesn't mean action HAS to be taken and I share the concerns of a number of people over the consequences of taking such action. Irrespective of whatever international legality exists or otherwise for an action against those using chemical weapons, I am left with the sense of "what happens next?" and not in an amusing Question of Sport way.

    Let's say the US, UK and France carry out a series of airstrikes on air bases and Syrian Government buildings - such actions in Libya didn't lead to a collapse of Gaddafi's Government and I suspect Assad's wouldn't crumble either. Ultimately, it may come down to airstrikes on tanks and armoured formations and as we saw in Libya, the propensity of the regime under attack to shelter such vehicles in civilian areas makes such strikes fraught with the risk of civilian collateral casualties.
    My guess is where we are heading is a draft UN resolution which requires Syria to agree to decommission their chemical weapons stocks immediately with destruction supervised by the United Nations or face the consequences.

    The resolution could be extended to urge Syria to enter into UN sponsored negotiations with rebel representatives for a ceasefire and political settlement of the Civil War.

    Both seem very reasonable in the circumstances and it would be hard for Russia and China to veto the resolutions with the eyes of the world focussed on them in the coming week.

    I would say there is a very reasonable chance that by the end of next week all talk of immediate military action will have been abandoned.
  • corporeal said:

    corporeal said:

    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

    Pfsh, modern history would be a reference to the late-19th century British-Egyptian war under Gladstone.

    I did manage to blame both Asquith and Clegg for WW1 and Syria today.

    Bloody messes always happens when the Liberals are in government
    The National Government of 1931-40 under MacDonald then Chamberlain also contained Liberal ministers (albeit reducing in the later part of that).
    I blame WW2 on the Liberals who helped us negotiate/sign the Treaty of Versailles, which happened under Lloyd George's watch
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hague: Yanks will be able to make their own decisions (about going it alone.)

  • Andy_JS said:

    It's only a matter of time before we have to put boots on the ground in Syria IMO.

    Why?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited August 2013
    [Missed the thread change]

    @stodge

    Well, it's a well-drafted text but then I'd expect nothing less from the Government machine.

    The interesting part for me is the connection between the humanitarian crisis and the use of chemical weapons. I find that tenuous inasmuch as the humanitarian crisis existed long before the chemical weapons attack.

    I would have liked to have seen more on dealing with the humanitarian crisis and linking military action to the relief of that crisis.

    ...


    The connection between "humanitarian crisis" and use of chemical weapons (a "Mass Atrocity Crime") and "crimes against humanity" are all direct references to the UN law on intervention by the international community in a sovereign state's internal affairs.

    Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) both agree on the fact that sovereignty is not absolute. However, the R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centred motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not on the right of states to intervene but on a responsibility to protect populations at risk. In addition, it introduces a new way of looking at the essence of sovereignty, moving away from issues of ‘control’ and emphasising ‘responsibility’ to one’s own citizens and the wider international community.

    The language of the motion suggests that the UK will be arguing the legality of intervention in the alternative: firstly under the 'old' humanitarian crisis intervention rules and secondly under the newer 'responsibility to protect' norms.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    corporeal said:

    corporeal said:

    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

    Pfsh, modern history would be a reference to the late-19th century British-Egyptian war under Gladstone.

    I did manage to blame both Asquith and Clegg for WW1 and Syria today.

    Bloody messes always happens when the Liberals are in government
    The National Government of 1931-40 under MacDonald then Chamberlain also contained Liberal ministers (albeit reducing in the later part of that).
    I blame WW2 on the Liberals who helped us negotiate/sign the Treaty of Versailles, which happened under Lloyd George's watch
    I'm just waiting for you to blame the Liberal Democrats for the fall of the Etruscans.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    I don't think Hague really believes now that we'll be on this gig.

    All about tomorrow's debate sending a message of disapproval to the world....
  • Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    RodCrosby said:



    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?

    We don't. The Syrians sort it out themselves. Assad wins (he's already all but won the civil war).

    Problem solved. It's not rocket-science...
    And do we just stand by and let chemical weapons be used, emboldening all sorts of people to cross that red line?

    Problem most certainly not solved. If only it was that simple.

    Perhaps I should reproduce part of what I wrote this morning:

    The risks of going in:
    *) We support the wrong side, if there is a 'wrong' or 'right' side any more.
    *) We create long-term hatred towards us and risk retribution attacks against us directly. However, inaction could also cause hatred towards us: "why aren't you helping?"
    *) We end up killing civilians instead of aiding them.
    *) We risk our armed forces.
    *) We support and arm groups that are positively hostile towards us.
    *) We prolong the conflict (although it's already very prolonged).

    The risks of staying out:
    *) Other regimes know they can use chemical weapons indiscriminately, both internally and externally.
    *) We risk more chemical and conventional attacks inside Syria, by all sides.
    *) We risk groups inside Syria using weapons against the camps intra- and extra-Syria, especially Turkey. Many insurgents are believed to be coming through those camps.
    *) The conflict develops into a stalemate, continues for longer and kills more non-combatants.
    *) Chemical weapons become more of a direct threat against us.
    *) Regimes do more research into weapons of mass destruction.
    *) Our campaign against North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons becomes much harder, as they will see our threats as toothless.

    A diplomatic solution would be ideal, and Russia would be the ideal lever against Assad. But that has not worked for two years so far.

    And also: source for the claim that Assad has already all but won the civil war. That's not what others are saying (including, AFAICR Y0kel).
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    tim said:

    Poor Willie Hague, did Dave tell him he had the numbers?

    Yes , it is pretty clear that little Willie was seeing himself as some sort of Churchillian figure rescuing the world with a British gun boat or two .
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Yorkcity said:

    antifrank said:

    @Yorkcity If we're not going to act when we see film of children being subjected to chemical weapons, it's not going to happen.


    That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.

    It might be .

    However the now or never is totally risible.

    Its ramping up the rhetoric for a quick fix, with no strategy beyond saving Obamas red line.


    No its not because you are working on the delusion that our opinion actually counts in this. By the end of the weekend this will have happened and we will have taken no part. You can argue (as in Vietnam) that that is the right decision but the fact is we have made a decision by default. We are not taking part in this and our image as the US's most reliable ally is greatly diminished.

    That is why Hague is looking so gutted. The long term strategic implications of this may well be significant. And I say all of this as someone who was completely unconvinced that there was any justification for this at all.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    [Thread change missed: last one!]

    @tim

    No point making noises that add up to nothing for two years then try and push everything through in two days, Blair had the balls to drag the USA into Kosovo and had the balls to stop a civil war in Sierra Leone.

    Cameron has payed this like he did the boundary changes, at the last moment he realised he didn't have the numbers and couldn't command the support of his backbenchers.
    He had to stop the vote because he would've been humiliated by Tory And Lib Dem MPs.



    No, tim.

    The parliamentary vote is only one piece of a very large jigsaw that Cameron and Hague have to put together. It is one of those dark coloured bits that form the background.

    In the foreground are the allies, the US, France and Turkey with the most direct involvement; Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iraq and the Arab League; Germany and other EU countries; NATO; the EU; the UK Defence Staff and MOD; the Treasury; the FCO; and, of course, Russia and China and other members of the Security Council as well as Iran.

    Miliband and his games are really far, far down Cameron's agenda. Dave will be laughing at Ed when chatting with Barack tonight. "Not another little boy like Putin, is he Dave?". "'fraid so, Barry".

    As Stark Dawning so wisely points out, Labour activists and spinners running around crying 'Ed's playing a blinder' is but a trifle in context. Might get 5 minutes on Sky News. 10 or 15 minutes on the BBC but it will all be forgotten by midnight.
  • corporeal said:

    corporeal said:

    corporeal said:

    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

    Pfsh, modern history would be a reference to the late-19th century British-Egyptian war under Gladstone.

    I did manage to blame both Asquith and Clegg for WW1 and Syria today.

    Bloody messes always happens when the Liberals are in government
    The National Government of 1931-40 under MacDonald then Chamberlain also contained Liberal ministers (albeit reducing in the later part of that).
    I blame WW2 on the Liberals who helped us negotiate/sign the Treaty of Versailles, which happened under Lloyd George's watch
    I'm just waiting for you to blame the Liberal Democrats for the fall of the Etruscans.
    I can, the Etruscans were a Government Theocracy, which is what Nick Clegg's plan for 15 year termed Senator was nearly as bad as
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Mr. Eagles, I know that you mostly do that, though I do try and correct you for the sake of historical accuracy.

    I'm afraid I missed the Crassus reference. Not been around too much.

    I believe Crassus' severed head was used as a prop in a performance of Bacchae.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    RodCrosby said:



    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?

    We don't. The Syrians sort it out themselves. Assad wins (he's already all but won the civil war).

    Problem solved. It's not rocket-science...
    And do we just stand by and let chemical weapons be used, emboldening all sorts of people to cross that red line?
    We don't seem to have a problem standing by while Hague's allies massacre villages the old-fashioned way.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    Syria crosses the red line

    Cameron shits himself and retreats from the Red Ed line

    Celtic qualify for Europe?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    YES!!! Go Celtic
  • Sean_F said:

    Mr. Eagles, I know that you mostly do that, though I do try and correct you for the sake of historical accuracy.

    I'm afraid I missed the Crassus reference. Not been around too much.

    I believe Crassus' severed head was used as a prop in a performance of Bacchae.

    I'm fairly certain it inspired a scene in one of the Game of Thrones books
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    corporeal said:

    corporeal said:

    Mr. Eagles, saying Hannibal lost the Second Punic War is like saying Edward III lost the Hundred Years War [NB this is of course a modern history reference, so I stand to be corrected if need be].

    Furthermore, almost a century passed between the end of one war and the start of another. During that time Carthaginian territory was perpetually eroded to the advantage of Numidia (mostly under Massinissa, who was a Roman ally during the Second Punic War and lived to a grand old age as King of Numidia, unifying the two halves after his rival king, Syphax, was defeated).

    I'm just yanking your chain.

    I hope you appreciated the Crassus reference this morning

    Pfsh, modern history would be a reference to the late-19th century British-Egyptian war under Gladstone.

    I did manage to blame both Asquith and Clegg for WW1 and Syria today.

    Bloody messes always happens when the Liberals are in government
    The National Government of 1931-40 under MacDonald then Chamberlain also contained Liberal ministers (albeit reducing in the later part of that).
    I blame WW2 on the Liberals who helped us negotiate/sign the Treaty of Versailles, which happened under Lloyd George's watch
    I blame a british pm for declaring war in 1939 over Poland, then doing absolutley nothing to defend poland from Germany or Russia, a declaration of stupidity.

  • RespiteRespite Posts: 8
    The US surely has to strike after the turn in rhetoric over the last couple of days - the only thing that could stop it would be a major climbdown by the Assad regime, which won't happen. It will probably wait until next week in order to get the UK on side and have a broader base of support, but not much longer. It will still have support from France, and diplomatic support from Germany and the Arab league.

    So all that is likely to change before Miliband will have to make a decision early next week:
    - UN Weapon inspectors will report chemical weapons were used, but not blame either side as it's not part of their mandate.
    - The UK will try and fail to get UN Security council approval, which Russia will veto.

    Voting against will either force Cameron to strike without parliamentary approval (as is within his remit) or mean the UK sits on the side as the US strikes. Voting for will require Miliband to explain why he changed his mind when nothing has really changed.
  • Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.

    Damascus was occupied briefly by British forces twice during the 20th century, in WW1 and also WW2. I personally think therefore that Syria should be eligible for Commonwealth membership, maybe when the current war's over.
  • See if Blair was in charge today, and faced with the same numbers as Dave, we all know he'd sex up some intelligence which turned out to someone's dissertation off the internet
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    Celtic slaughter sheep slaughterers
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.

    Palestine worked out well.

    In other news, c'mon the Celtic.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.

    Damascus was occupied briefly by British forces twice during the 20th century, in WW1 and also WW2. I personally think therefore that Syria should be eligible for Commonwealth membership, maybe when the current war's over.
    Briefly occupied would make most of the world eligible.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Eagles, I know that you mostly do that, though I do try and correct you for the sake of historical accuracy.

    I'm afraid I missed the Crassus reference. Not been around too much.

    I believe Crassus' severed head was used as a prop in a performance of Bacchae.

    I'm fairly certain it inspired a scene in one of the Game of Thrones books
    That's the other story of his death - by having molten gold poured down his throat. That was certainly the fate that Mithradates inflicted on Manius Aquilius.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    AveryLP said:


    My guess is where we are heading is a draft UN resolution which requires Syria to agree to decommission their chemical weapons stocks immediately with destruction supervised by the United Nations or face the consequences.

    The resolution could be extended to urge Syria to enter into UN sponsored negotiations with rebel representatives for a ceasefire and political settlement of the Civil War.

    Both seem very reasonable in the circumstances and it would be hard for Russia and China to veto the resolutions with the eyes of the world focussed on them in the coming week.

    I would say there is a very reasonable chance that by the end of next week all talk of immediate military action will have been abandoned.

    Well, if that's where the UN is going, fine. There is of course no timescale on the former and no compulsion on the latter so all it is doing is effectively kicking the can down the road in some respect.

    As you say, it's a motion which Russia and China can either accept or abstain but it would be hard for them to veto outright. The problem comes IF Assad fails to comply or prevaricates while his tanks and armour continue their assault.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    See if Blair was in charge today, and faced with the same numbers as Dave, we all know he'd sex up some intelligence which turned out to someone's dissertation off the internet

    And the opposition containing people like, say, David Cameron, would be so stupid that they'd swallow it.

    Thank goodness today's opposition isn't as stupid.
  • Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.

    Palestine worked out well.

    In other news, c'mon the Celtic.
    Nah, think about it, we'd have controlled that entire region and sorted it out.

    Which has got me thinking, if Scotland votes for Independence next year, we need to ban Labour from forming The UK government in 2015.

    Because the last time a Labour government was in charge of partitioning a country, hundreds of thousands of people of died because of Labour's ineptness.

    I may do a thread on that.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    antifrank said:

    @Yorkcity If we're not going to act when we see film of children being subjected to chemical weapons, it's not going to happen.


    That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.

    It might be .

    However the now or never is totally risible.

    Its ramping up the rhetoric for a quick fix, with no strategy beyond saving Obamas red line.


    No its not because you are working on the delusion that our opinion actually counts in this. By the end of the weekend this will have happened and we will have taken no part. You can argue (as in Vietnam) that that is the right decision but the fact is we have made a decision by default. We are not taking part in this and our image as the US's most reliable ally is greatly diminished.

    That is why Hague is looking so gutted. The long term strategic implications of this may well be significant. And I say all of this as someone who was completely unconvinced that there was any justification for this at all.
    That's the gist imo. The US is going to do it anyway. This is just about whether Britain gets to dress in a little skirt and cheer-lead. Under normal circumstances coming unstuck from the US would be a bad thing but as the US military complex has gone gradually insane since 9/11 (imo) detaching for a bit is the best option.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited August 2013
    FPT. Totally agree with both oxfordsimon and antifrank in their comments from the last thread. Watching the news earlier this evening, it was really incredible to see the Labour party reduce tomorrow's Parliamentary debate on Syria to such petty partisan politics. And then to run around briefing that was what they were doing while boasting they had achieved some political victory before a debate Parliament had actually taken place! They are not fit to govern, and that dithering idiot Miliband is certainly not a Parliamentary Statesman in the making.

    If I have read things correctly, Labour are proposing an amendment to a motion that has yet to be published saying that they will oppose that as-yet-unpublished motion unless their amendment is passed...

    How in anyway is that being a responsible opposition?

    They really don't know what they are doing - and it is showing badly.

    Miliband and Alexander are floudering in their own inexperience. It is a woeful performance from the Official Opposition. Particularly when it was their party who engaged us in all sorts of military action with a hell of a lot less justification than is available to us now.

    I don't want to see military action - but I also don't want to allow the use of chemical weapons - and so reluctantly some military strikes might be necessary (as they were in the Balkans)

    But Miliband seems to want to play politics over this - and not think about the wider humanitarian situation. Shameful

    antifrank said:

    On the other hand, from this point on, Labour own every atrocity in Syria. I'm not sure Ed Miliband will be too comfortable with that.

  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited August 2013
    As an aside, I wonder what all the hopey-changey true believers will think when Obama starts tomahawking the guts out of Syria.

    I'll cut Obama some slack because a) the situation is very difficult, b) I never believed Obama was some anti-politics Messiah anyway and c) I believe America is ungovernable unless you conform to the Beltway, but if he commits to a war in the Middle East on Friday I imagine a lot of Americans will be crestfallen.
  • Man U v Liverpool in the next round of the Rumbelows Cup
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    'And do we just stand by and let chemical weapons be used, emboldening all sorts of people to cross that red line?'

    Yes, sadly, it's already been crossed several times. CW was used in the Yemeni civil war as long ago as the 1960s. The Yanks used Agent Orange. Both sides probably used CW in the Iran-Iraq War. Israel and the US use White Phosphorous...

    And I've yet to see any convincing evidence that Assad's government was responsible for this incident.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Extraordinary:

    'Russia's Interfax news agency is reporting that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, has told William Hague that the UN Security Council should not consider a Syria resolution before inspectors report on allegations of chemical weapons.'

    Miliband is taking his lead from Assad's puppet masters in the Kremlin.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    "Blair got much wrong re Iraq, but he always knew he cd win a vote in the Commons. Cam agreed to a vote without knowing whether he cd win it."

    Not been paying too much attention, but isn't that the way it's meant to work?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "The number of foreign nationals claiming benefits such as Jobseeker’s Allowance has jumped by 40 per cent in just four years to more than 400,000, new government figures have disclosed."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10271855/Number-of-foreign-nationals-on-benefits-soars-to-400000.html
  • SeanT said:

    tim said:

    @steverichards14: Blair got much wrong re Iraq, but he always knew he cd win a vote in the Commons. Cam agreed to a vote without knowing whether he cd win it.

    That's like saying "Hitler got a lot wrong re the Jews, but he knew how to build a reliable Polish rail network"

    Have you written your "Are the armchair warmongers mentally ill?" piece yet?

    :)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    SeanT said:

    These "international laws" which ban chemical weapons, do they specifically say it's OK for Obama to, unilaterally, take out the odd wedding with a drone, during his elevenses?

    Just wondrin'.

    I know this isn't what you mean, but the following appear to be relevant:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

    And nope, no mention of wedding parties or drones.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?

    It's the wrong question. The right questions are:

    A. Is the situation in Syria currently capable of an attractive solution?
    B. Is Britain empowered by some kind of mandate to decide what it is?
    C. If we believe we are so empowered - by some sort of global mission to promote humanity, perhaps - are we so sure we're right that we're prepare to start killing people to promote our view?

    I don 't think we should fix the problem of Syria. It is, primarily, a matter for the Syrians, and the world is not helping to at all by pouring arms, training and now actual potential missile launched to favour the side we marginally less dislike. I'm been here, got the T-shirt, and got it wrong.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.

    Palestine worked out well.

    In other news, c'mon the Celtic.
    Nah, think about it, we'd have controlled that entire region and sorted it out.

    Which has got me thinking, if Scotland votes for Independence next year, we need to ban Labour from forming The UK government in 2015.

    Because the last time a Labour government was in charge of partitioning a country, hundreds of thousands of people of died because of Labour's ineptness.

    I may do a thread on that.
    To pursue the analogy, keep royals away from it (cf Mountbatten) and avoid partition in the first place (none of that 'independent Shetland' bollox*).

    * unless they really want a referendum of course.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited August 2013
    He would also turn the vote on the issue of taking the country to war in Iraq into a threat that he would make it a resigning matter as PM if he lost it. Something which no doubt forced more than the odd Labour MP into towing his line on the issue of the Iraq War.

    See if Blair was in charge today, and faced with the same numbers as Dave, we all know he'd sex up some intelligence which turned out to someone's dissertation off the internet

  • Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.

    Palestine worked out well.

    In other news, c'mon the Celtic.
    Nah, think about it, we'd have controlled that entire region and sorted it out.

    Which has got me thinking, if Scotland votes for Independence next year, we need to ban Labour from forming The UK government in 2015.

    Because the last time a Labour government was in charge of partitioning a country, hundreds of thousands of people of died because of Labour's ineptness.

    I may do a thread on that.
    To pursue the analogy, keep royals away from it (cf Mountbatten) and avoid partition in the first place (none of that 'independent Shetland' bollox*).

    * unless they really want a referendum of course.
    Good thinking, I'll work those thoughts into the piece
  • corporeal said:

    Actually I blame the French.

    The fault of current day Syria is that Syria was placed as a French Mandate after WW1.

    If Syria had been a British Mandate, then none of these problems today would have happened.

    Damascus was occupied briefly by British forces twice during the 20th century, in WW1 and also WW2. I personally think therefore that Syria should be eligible for Commonwealth membership, maybe when the current war's over.
    Briefly occupied would make most of the world eligible.
    Not really - and in my geekiness I have compiled what I believe to be a complete list of places and territories either 1) occupied by England/Britain at some time over the centuries. I even included the USA :) OR 2) have English as a de facto or de jure official language.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    antifrank said:

    @Yorkcity If we're not going to act when we see film of children being subjected to chemical weapons, it's not going to happen.


    That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.

    It might be .

    However the now or never is totally risible.

    Its ramping up the rhetoric for a quick fix, with no strategy beyond saving Obamas red line.


    No its not because you are working on the delusion that our opinion actually counts in this. By the end of the weekend this will have happened and we will have taken no part. You can argue (as in Vietnam) that that is the right decision but the fact is we have made a decision by default. We are not taking part in this and our image as the US's most reliable ally is greatly diminished.

    That is why Hague is looking so gutted. The long term strategic implications of this may well be significant. And I say all of this as someone who was completely unconvinced that there was any justification for this at all.
    Our opinion does count.

    I was against the now or never line.

    It is always the same even going back to Germany in 1914 with atrocities in Belguim.



  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited August 2013
    If Luis Suarez does stay at Liverpool, his first match back would be the Rumbelows cup match at Old Trafford.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    fitalass said:

    He would also turn the vote on the issue of taking the country to war into a threat that he would make it a resigning matter as PM. Something which no doubt forced more than the odd Labour MP into towing his line on the issue of the Iraq War.

    See if Blair was in charge today, and faced with the same numbers as Dave, we all know he'd sex up some intelligence which turned out to someone's dissertation off the internet

    But far more Tory MPs, proportionally. Including David Cameron. And they weren't even forced into it. Just stupid, perhaps?
  • tim said:

    antifrank said:

    @tim It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that David Cameron now has a Get Out Of Jail Free card, regardless of what now happens in Syria.

    You're assuming that Labour, the Lib Dems and Tory backbenchers won't vote for military action when the proof of the chemical attacks is there?
    I doubt that very much.

    The problem is the conditions and level of proof demanded by Carl on the previous thread is so high as to be virtually unachievable. I bet many people will think in exactly the same way. If they are achieved, it will probably only be after many months of deliberation and negotiation with Russia and others.

    For one thing, it looks very likely that the UN inspectors will say whether or not chemical weapons were used, but not who used them. That means any such evidence would have to come from the security services of the very countries that want action, and many will not believe it, especially after the Iraq debacle.

    Then there are Russian (and to a lesser extent Chinese) desires to be placated to even get it through the UNSC.

    And in the meantime, the killing continues.

    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?
    Why do 'we' need to fix the problem of Syria ?

    Why not let the Hizbollah / Iranian side continue to fight with the Al Qaeda / Saudi side ?

    We can provide some humanitarian aid while watching assorted unpleasant people kill each other off.

    We didn't get involved in the Algerian civil war, we're not getting involved in the upcoming Egyptian civil war, what's so necessary about the Syrian civil war that we need to get involved in it ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    fitalass said:

    He would also turn the vote on the issue of taking the country to war in Iraq into a threat that he would make it a resigning matter as PM if he lost it. Something which no doubt forced more than the odd Labour MP into towing his line on the issue of the Iraq War.

    See if Blair was in charge today, and faced with the same numbers as Dave, we all know he'd sex up some intelligence which turned out to someone's dissertation off the internet

    Wouldnt work for Cameron though would it?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    SeanT said:

    These "international laws" which ban chemical weapons, do they specifically say it's OK for Obama to, unilaterally, take out the odd wedding with a drone, during his elevenses?

    Just wondrin'.

    I know this isn't what you mean, but the following appear to be relevant:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

    And nope, no mention of wedding parties or drones.
    Is cutting prisoner's heads off with pen-knives or massacring villages the old-fashioned way mentioned in any of those Geneva type protocols cos if they are you can go onto liveleak.com and see loads of videos of our allies doing it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517



    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?

    It's the wrong question. The right questions are:

    A. Is the situation in Syria currently capable of an attractive solution?
    B. Is Britain empowered by some kind of mandate to decide what it is?
    C. If we believe we are so empowered - by some sort of global mission to promote humanity, perhaps - are we so sure we're right that we're prepare to start killing people to promote our view?

    I don 't think we should fix the problem of Syria. It is, primarily, a matter for the Syrians, and the world is not helping to at all by pouring arms, training and now actual potential missile launched to favour the side we marginally less dislike. I'm been here, got the T-shirt, and got it wrong.

    It's the perfect question (note, it does not say 'fix Syria's problems').

    Chemical weapons have been used. Chemical weapons should not be used, and we do not want them being used for a whole host of reasons, not least the indiscriminate mass murder of civilians.

    It has added a whole other dimension to the problem, one that Obama's 'red line' talk did nothing to help.

    In the meantime, people die.
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    @steverichards14: Blair got much wrong re Iraq, but he always knew he cd win a vote in the Commons. Cam agreed to a vote without knowing whether he cd win it.

    That's like saying "Hitler got a lot wrong re the Jews, but he knew how to build a reliable Polish rail network"

    Have you written your "Are the armchair warmongers mentally ill?" piece yet?

    :)
    My problem is that there is almost too much material. See my recent comments, passim.

    But I am planning a blog.
    Writing threads/articles on Syria is a nightmare, events keep on getting overtaken
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2013
    'what's so necessary about the Syrian civil war that we need to get involved in it ?'

    Assad is winning it, contrary to plan...
  • Just watched 80s classic Footloose on E4 - with a bit part for a very young Sarah Jessica Parker!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    antifrank said:

    @Yorkcity If we're not going to act when we see film of children being subjected to chemical weapons, it's not going to happen.


    That may well, incidentally, be the right decision.

    It might be .

    However the now or never is totally risible.

    Its ramping up the rhetoric for a quick fix, with no strategy beyond saving Obamas red line.


    No its not because you are working on the delusion that our opinion actually counts in this. By the end of the weekend this will have happened and we will have taken no part. You can argue (as in Vietnam) that that is the right decision but the fact is we have made a decision by default. We are not taking part in this and our image as the US's most reliable ally is greatly diminished.

    That is why Hague is looking so gutted. The long term strategic implications of this may well be significant. And I say all of this as someone who was completely unconvinced that there was any justification for this at all.
    Our opinion does count.

    I was against the now or never line.

    It is always the same even going back to Germany in 1914 with atrocities in Belguim.



    1914 is the epitome of when "it's now or never" really was the case. We should never have got involved, but given that we did, it was critical we intervened early or France would have fallen.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750



    So my question posed below remains: how do we fix the problem of Syria?

    It's the wrong question. The right questions are:

    A. Is the situation in Syria currently capable of an attractive solution?
    B. Is Britain empowered by some kind of mandate to decide what it is?
    C. If we believe we are so empowered - by some sort of global mission to promote humanity, perhaps - are we so sure we're right that we're prepare to start killing people to promote our view?

    I don 't think we should fix the problem of Syria. It is, primarily, a matter for the Syrians, and the world is not helping to at all by pouring arms, training and now actual potential missile launched to favour the side we marginally less dislike. I'm been here, got the T-shirt, and got it wrong.

    It's the perfect question (note, it does not say 'fix Syria's problems').

    Chemical weapons have been used. Chemical weapons should not be used, and we do not want them being used for a whole host of reasons, not least the indiscriminate mass murder of civilians.

    It has added a whole other dimension to the problem, one that Obama's 'red line' talk did nothing to help.

    In the meantime, people die.
    It's not really a new dimension. Chemical weapons were probably used quite some time ago.
This discussion has been closed.