Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Mrs May does back military strikes against Syria it will be

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited April 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Mrs May does back military strikes against Syria it will be in the face of public opinion

There is no doubt that this is going to be a tricky one for the prime minister. After gathering of the consensus of nations in relation to the Salisbury attack she’s now in a position where there’s an expectation that Britain could support action against Syria particularly because of the use of chemical weapons.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    First.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Second
  • Let's do this.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    As I said last night, she's stupid if she does anything without parliamentary backing.

    Call it backside covering.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    Let's do this.

    If the allies and NATO agree and it is targeted at the chemical weapon production and delivery systems then yes

    Nothing else and no regime change
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698

    As I said last night, she's stupid if she does anything without parliamentary backing.

    Call it backside covering.

    With the current Labour leadership?

    Riiiiight
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 12
    Yes, it won't be popular, at best you'll get highly divided reactions. It's one reason the idea PMs in this day would take such an action for popularity's sake doesn't hold up. Some will automatically oppose any action out of hand (which is wrong), others won't think it's the right thing to do for all manner of reasons.

    It's also why there's no benefit to parliament being brought in. It would just be a chance for lots of grandstanding for or against, then maybe a lost vote, with no political or public gain from having done so even if the vote were to succeed. I don't think it would cover her backside like Sandy says - we don't give other PMs a pass even if they had parliamentary backing for actions, if it turns out bad.

    And then at the end of it any escalation is likely to be small.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    Anyway - in more important news.....


    WiFi cards in new pc's replaced and all is well with the world. :-)
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981
    edited April 12
    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.





    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Squeaky bum time for Arsenal
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    You got similar polling in the early 1930s.

    May needs to lead the nation.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    As I said last night, she's stupid if she does anything without parliamentary backing.

    Call it backside covering.

    Agreed.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.





    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    Maybe it’s the beard.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 331
    I do wonder if a poll that didn't offer the attractive but impractical option of a no fly zone would show more support for missile strikes
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,069
    I don’t envy the government having to make this decision. An intervention in the Middle East will never be popular post-Iraq. The problem is that no action whatsoever sends an awful message too - I think Obama’s infamous “red line” still haunts us.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,395
    FPT:

    Anazina said:

    I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.

    I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.

    If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.

    Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.

    Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.

    If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.

    (*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
    Perfectly put. It's not about revenge, or bombing innocents, or getting aroused by large explosions. It's about morality and necessary repercussions for indefensible and - and I use the word quite deliberately - evil acts.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
    I didn't know that. Good on the Welsh Conservatives!
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,395

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
    Welsh Labour are clearly all Blairite neoliberal scum, and they should all just f*ck off and join the Tories.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
    I didn't know that. Good on the Welsh Conservatives!
    Its easy to offer policies like that when there's very little chance that you'll be in government to apply them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Anorak said:

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
    Welsh Labour are clearly all Blairite neoliberal scum, and they should all just f*ck off and join the Tories.
    Everyone is welcome
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
    And the tory response this time ?

    "fantasy economics"

    what a bunch of clowns to left and right
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    Anorak said:

    FPT:

    Anazina said:

    I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.

    I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.

    If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.

    Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.

    Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.

    If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.

    (*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
    Perfectly put. It's not about revenge, or bombing innocents, or getting aroused by large explosions. It's about morality and necessary repercussions for indefensible and - and I use the word quite deliberately - evil acts.
    That is not what JJ has claimed. He has said it is about stopping Assad or others using these weapons again. It is, in his view, about deterrent. And in that this will fail utterly.

    As I said earlier this cannot be about morality because we already crossed that particular moral line decades ago when we helped our chosen son in the Middle East to use chemical weapons against his neighbours.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711




    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    He's a pleasant seeming chap, and can deliver a good sounding message, but frankly while I hope I do not sneer, I also do not quite understand the fervour he inspires in people, he isn't that revolutionary (in manner), and he's proven to be just as capable of nakedly partisan spin and dissembling, and cynical vote grabbing policies, as any normal politician. People being inspired can be a great thing (though unfortunately many people can be inspired to be wankers as well), but I don't pretend to understand what it is about the man that captivates so much.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,447

    Anorak said:

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
    Welsh Labour are clearly all Blairite neoliberal scum, and they should all just f*ck off and join the Tories.
    Everyone is welcome
    :)

    Bravo
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984515501844934657
    htwitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984523184916582405

    Can I have a translation from gobbledygook into english for the second bit please?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Floater said:

    Not entirely off topic, Corbyn continues to do things no other politician could.



    https://twitter.com/ShellyAsquith/status/984420240690950144

    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    You do know the policy is Welsh Conservative policy from October last year with no caveats - all 16 - 25 year olds in Wales to have free bus travel

    Wales labour response 'fantasy economics'
    And the tory response this time ?

    "fantasy economics"

    what a bunch of clowns to left and right
    No one really minds a bit of fantasy economics - we just accept different amounts of it at different times, depending on who is offering it. Twas ever thus, but we never learn.

    I certainly don't - haven't learned a thing since 1998, it just gets in the way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    kle4 said:




    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    He's a pleasant seeming chap, and can deliver a good sounding message, but frankly while I hope I do not sneer, I also do not quite understand the fervour he inspires in people, he isn't that revolutionary (in manner), and he's proven to be just as capable of nakedly partisan spin and dissembling, and cynical vote grabbing policies, as any normal politician. People being inspired can be a great thing (though unfortunately many people can be inspired to be wankers as well), but I don't pretend to understand what it is about the man that captivates so much.
    He tells many people what they want to hear, in a charismatic way, and believes in what he’s saying: that comes across as honest, credible and exciting.

    I’m not sure there’s anything particularly unique about it. There have been many leaders like Corbyn in history who inspired just as much fervour, before they took power.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    I don’t envy the government having to make this decision. An intervention in the Middle East will never be popular post-Iraq. The problem is that no action whatsoever sends an awful message too - I think Obama’s infamous “red line” still haunts us.

    Yes, ask any former PM and they’ll say that military deployment is the worst part of the job. But it’s what we pay them to do, to take these decisions on our behalf, to honour the treaties we have signed and to tell people like Assad that no, it’s not acceptable to gas children.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828

    Anorak said:

    FPT:

    Anazina said:

    I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.

    I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.

    If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.

    Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.

    Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.

    If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.

    (*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
    Perfectly put. It's not about revenge, or bombing innocents, or getting aroused by large explosions. It's about morality and necessary repercussions for indefensible and - and I use the word quite deliberately - evil acts.
    That is not what JJ has claimed. He has said it is about stopping Assad or others using these weapons again. It is, in his view, about deterrent. And in that this will fail utterly.

    As I said earlier this cannot be about morality because we already crossed that particular moral line decades ago when we helped our chosen son in the Middle East to use chemical weapons against his neighbours.
    I am torn on this issue, but your argument that we did the wrong thing many years ago so we must always do the wrong thing is not a good one.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280

    Anorak said:

    FPT:

    Anazina said:

    I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.

    I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.

    If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.

    Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.

    Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.

    If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.

    (*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
    Perfectly put. It's not about revenge, or bombing innocents, or getting aroused by large explosions. It's about morality and necessary repercussions for indefensible and - and I use the word quite deliberately - evil acts.
    That is not what JJ has claimed. He has said it is about stopping Assad or others using these weapons again. It is, in his view, about deterrent. And in that this will fail utterly.

    As I said earlier this cannot be about morality because we already crossed that particular moral line decades ago when we helped our chosen son in the Middle East to use chemical weapons against his neighbours.
    I've expressed my view clearly may times, including in the linked post. I'm unsure your first paragraph accurately condenses it.

    I think the idea that no-one should ever use chemical and biological weapons (yet alone again) is rather a good one. Do you disagree?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 12

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984515501844934657
    htwitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984523184916582405

    Can I have a translation from gobbledygook into english for the second bit please?
    Corbyn should not issue statements on foreign affairs because the media are unfair even when he is very clear, so it should just be a generic statement from a spokesman (rather than, as happens, a statement delivered by a spokesman but still in Corbyn's name).

    I don't quite see how refusing to make a personal statement would help him avoid letting the government off the hook.

    Even accepting a smidgeon of a point that he does often face a hostile media, bits of it at any rate, one thing that I don't get about the most intense of Corbyn fans (I don't know if Osamor is one of those in fairness) is that his ability to communicate is meant to be one of his strengths, but he seems to get in a great big muddle and need spokesmen to clarify what he actually meant a lot. That is, he apparently communicates what he means very poorly. Not that Osamor is making a point any better.

    (My being a poor communicator is different; I'm an amateur, while Corbyn is a decades long professional politician,albeit of a different stripe than some recent examples)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Floater said:
    Well that depends what you mean. They are seriously in contention for winning the next election after all.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 795
    Anorak said:

    FPT:

    Anazina said:

    I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.

    I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.

    If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.

    Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.

    Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.

    If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.

    (*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
    Perfectly put. It's not about revenge, or bombing innocents, or getting aroused by large explosions. It's about morality and necessary repercussions for indefensible and - and I use the word quite deliberately - evil acts.
    Yes, it is about chemical weapons. They are not so impossibly difficult to produce or use and one could easily see a world where their use becomes normalised in militaries with some technical capability. They are but a small element amongst the much larger conventional warfare suffering in Syria, but what striking to negate advantage does is to help ensure that in some other future conflict in some other land clearing the way forward with chemical strikes will not establish itself as a first tactic and lead to far worse than we now see in Syria.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Arsenal just saved themselves
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    kle4 said:

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984515501844934657
    htwitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984523184916582405

    Can I have a translation from gobbledygook into english for the second bit please?
    Corbyn should not issue statements on foreign affairs because the media are unfair even when he is very clear, so it should just be a generic statement from a spokesman (rather than, as happens, a statement delivered by a spokesman but still in Corbyn's name).

    I don't quite see how refusing to make a personal statement would help him avoid letting the government off the hook.

    Even accepting a smidgeon of a point that he does often face a hostile media, bits of it at any rate, one thing that I don't get about the most intense of Corbyn fans (I don't know if Osamor is one of those in fairness) is that his ability to communicate is meant to be one of his strengths, but he seems to get in a great big muddle and need spokesmen to clarify what he actually meant a lot. That is, he apparently communicates what he means very poorly. Not that Osamor is making a point any better.

    (My being a poor communicator is different; I'm an amateur)
    Sounds a bit like Barry Goldwater in 1968. He ran on giving it straight to the American people and saying what he thought. This included such remarkable comments as 'I want to lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin and make sure I hit it,' and refusing an invitation to appear on a late night show by saying to the host, 'Thank you, but I'd prefer to watch you in bed with my wife.'

    This got to such a pass that his press officer was reduced to pleading 'Don't quote what he says, quote what he means.'

    The Republicans blamed their huge defeat on a hostile media. They were very reluctant to admit a large part of the problem was that they had picked a candidate who really did say what he meant - and that was a load of nonsense.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,434
    edited April 12

    Let's do this.

    Yes I agree. If we're going to take action we might as well knock out most of his capabilities in one go instead of messing about.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 331
    kle4 said:




    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    He's a pleasant seeming chap, and can deliver a good sounding message, but frankly while I hope I do not sneer, I also do not quite understand the fervour he inspires in people, he isn't that revolutionary (in manner), and he's proven to be just as capable of nakedly partisan spin and dissembling, and cynical vote grabbing policies, as any normal politician. People being inspired can be a great thing (though unfortunately many people can be inspired to be wankers as well), but I don't pretend to understand what it is about the man that captivates so much.
    I think support for Corbyn is driven by the sense that he is under near constant attack, and the fear that if he goes down then the left will be driven back into the corner it languished in for 20 years.

    Its a lot less personal than people imagine, its about policy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    Get in there Arsenal!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212



    I've expressed my view clearly may times, including in the linked post. I'm unsure your first paragraph accurately condenses it.

    I think the idea that no-one should ever use chemical and biological weapons (yet alone again) is rather a good one. Do you disagree?

    No I agree. I did say on a the previous thread that I agreed with your analysis of what was happening but disagreed with your solution. Because it is no solution.

    There is absolutely no upside to what you are proposing and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future. What matters here is that Assad is sheltered by the Russians and the Iranians. As long as he has their support there is nothing we can do short of full scale invasion that will cause him any military grief.

    Sometimes we have to accept that situations are beyond our control. This is our Kobayashi Maru moment.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    @Anazina

    Does 'half-hearted hawkishness', mean there is a 'half-hearted hawk'?

    That must be a very rare and peculiar bird; I wouldn't let @MarqueeMark know about its existence, or he'll probably go chasing it down with his binoculars ... ;)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    William_H said:

    kle4 said:




    I don't doubt this will trigger off the usual sneering, but I'm neither very young nor very left wing. And yet I find the guy strangely likeable. Something's going on that I don't understand, and it might be something good.

    He's a pleasant seeming chap, and can deliver a good sounding message, but frankly while I hope I do not sneer, I also do not quite understand the fervour he inspires in people, he isn't that revolutionary (in manner), and he's proven to be just as capable of nakedly partisan spin and dissembling, and cynical vote grabbing policies, as any normal politician. People being inspired can be a great thing (though unfortunately many people can be inspired to be wankers as well), but I don't pretend to understand what it is about the man that captivates so much.
    I think support for Corbyn is driven by the sense that he is under near constant attack, and the fear that if he goes down then the left will be driven back into the corner it languished in for 20 years.

    Its a lot less personal than people imagine, its about policy.
    I'm sure you're right that is part of it (though others seem to try to argue he is not that radical a departure from the Labour norm of recent years after all, so I get mixed messages there), but it doesn't really explain those more extreme types who are so personally defensive of him, even when they themselves are in opposition to Corbyn's stated positions (eg over Syria).

    Even the MPs who so decisively rejected him before seem to have been totally quiet (and therefore content) on his domestic policies, and its only been foreign issues and anti-semitism which caused ructions (which seem to have passed) for him, so the Corbyn fans who are so passionate because they fear the left being pushed back into a corner really don't have a reason to be fearful I should think. If Corbyn should fall outside of an election for some reason, the MPs are already signed up to his programme and the members will surely back a lefty candidate now.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931
    edited April 12
    A lot of people seem to put their beliefs onto corbyn and believe he stands for what they stand for (even if he doesn't) eg how both leavers and remainers seem to think he stands for both.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,538
    Floater said:
    Yeah, see also sweetheart deals between senior German (ex-)politicians and Russia over the Nordstream gas pipeline through the Baltic sea.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,140
    As I said in the previous thread, if the goal is to prevent Assad and other rogue nations from using chemical weapons then the means (lobbing in a few cruise missiles) won't achieve that. In fact all it will do is allow the Russians and Assad to make countless propaganda videos with civilians being killed by western missiles. No doubt those civilians will have been bussed in (for free if they are under 25, one imagines) to these military targets just as Hamas do in the Israel/Palestine conflict, but they will be present nonetheless.

    I've yet to see a compelling argument that anything we are ready to do as a nation or collectively via NATO will come anywhere near the goal of preventing Assad and other rogue nations from using chemical weapons.

    The era of the British and American public being willing to spend blood and treasure to defend civilians in the Middle East is well past. The polling above supports that view as well.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280



    I've expressed my view clearly may times, including in the linked post. I'm unsure your first paragraph accurately condenses it.

    I think the idea that no-one should ever use chemical and biological weapons (yet alone again) is rather a good one. Do you disagree?

    No I agree. I did say on a the previous thread that I agreed with your analysis of what was happening but disagreed with your solution. Because it is no solution.

    There is absolutely no upside to what you are proposing and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future. What matters here is that Assad is sheltered by the Russians and the Iranians. As long as he has their support there is nothing we can do short of full scale invasion that will cause him any military grief.

    Sometimes we have to accept that situations are beyond our control. This is our Kobayashi Maru moment.
    I'm afraid that's rubbish IMV. I've expressed the major upside, which you sadly apparently do not care about.

    "and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future."

    I disagree. And neither will your apparent preferred solution of ignoring when treaties prohibiting their use are broken, which will render those same treaties worthless. In fact, I think it's obvious that'll make the situation and world security much worse.

    Anyway, I've got to get up early in the morning to go for a walk. Have a nice night everyone.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931

    twitter.com/vincecable/status/984532771547811843

    Who is this Vince cable? Seems like they give a blue check mark to any tom, dick and harry no name these days.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212



    I've expressed my view clearly may times, including in the linked post. I'm unsure your first paragraph accurately condenses it.

    I think the idea that no-one should ever use chemical and biological weapons (yet alone again) is rather a good one. Do you disagree?

    No I agree. I did say on a the previous thread that I agreed with your analysis of what was happening but disagreed with your solution. Because it is no solution.

    There is absolutely no upside to what you are proposing and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future. What matters here is that Assad is sheltered by the Russians and the Iranians. As long as he has their support there is nothing we can do short of full scale invasion that will cause him any military grief.

    Sometimes we have to accept that situations are beyond our control. This is our Kobayashi Maru moment.
    I'm afraid that's rubbish IMV. I've expressed the major upside, which you sadly apparently do not care about.

    "and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future."

    I disagree. And neither will your apparent preferred solution of ignoring when treaties prohibiting their use are broken, which will render those same treaties worthless. In fact, I think it's obvious that'll make the situation and world security much worse.

    Anyway, I've got to get up early in the morning to go for a walk. Have a nice night everyone.
    Your 'upside' is fanciful because it is based on the idea that doing what we have done before will miraculously work this time when it has never worked before.

    The only way Assad will stop using chemical weapons is if he completely wins or completely loses. What you propose will not result in either of those scenarios.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 12
    Well now, make up your mind Vince Cable - is it 'not sufficient' for action and Parliament 'must' vote, or is it merely 'very unwise' not to have them do so?

    I have been a great defender of the power of parliament, but I get wary at people ascribing to it power that is not necessarily theirs as a 'must' action. I would find such a demand more compelling if it was definitively stated as establishing a new convention, based on recent examples, rather than acting as though the government are acting in an entirely improper way for not following a non-existing requirement, even if creating a new convention would indeed be a good idea.
  • twitter.com/vincecable/status/984532771547811843

    Who is this Vince cable? Seems like they give a blue check mark to any tom, dick and harry no name these days.
    He's a really top bloke.

    He did what Thatcher never had the balls to do and privatise the Royal Mail.

    Plus Sir Vince is the expert about WMD, he's possessed a nuclear weapon since 2010.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    MaxPB said:

    As I said in the previous thread, if the goal is to prevent Assad and other rogue nations from using chemical weapons then the means (lobbing in a few cruise missiles) won't achieve that. In fact all it will do is allow the Russians and Assad to make countless propaganda videos with civilians being killed by western missiles. No doubt those civilians will have been bussed in (for free if they are under 25, one imagines) to these military targets just as Hamas do in the Israel/Palestine conflict, but they will be present nonetheless.

    I've yet to see a compelling argument that anything we are ready to do as a nation or collectively via NATO will come anywhere near the goal of preventing Assad and other rogue nations from using chemical weapons.

    The era of the British and American public being willing to spend blood and treasure to defend civilians in the Middle East is well past. The polling above supports that view as well.

    If you are right, then what is your solution to this mess?

    We did nothing in 2013, and we've ended up having a chemical weapon attack on our own soil. Perhaps Richard is right and acting in 2013 would have made things worse - or perhaps he is wrong.

    But what is also obvious is that doing nothing also carries risks, just as it proved to in 2013 with the continued attacks in Syria and the spread of the war. If you advocate doing nothing, then you should at least be willing to accept the risks that will come from that decision.

    Or, preferably, offer an alternative. Please, please do, for I'm finding it blooming well difficult to think of any workable ones.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,348
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984515501844934657
    htwitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/984523184916582405

    Can I have a translation from gobbledygook into english for the second bit please?
    Corbyn should not issue statements on foreign affairs because the media are unfair even when he is very clear, so it should just be a generic statement from a spokesman (rather than, as happens, a statement delivered by a spokesman but still in Corbyn's name).

    I don't quite see how refusing to make a personal statement would help him avoid letting the government off the hook.

    Even accepting a smidgeon of a point that he does often face a hostile media, bits of it at any rate, one thing that I don't get about the most intense of Corbyn fans (I don't know if Osamor is one of those in fairness) is that his ability to communicate is meant to be one of his strengths, but he seems to get in a great big muddle and need spokesmen to clarify what he actually meant a lot. That is, he apparently communicates what he means very poorly. Not that Osamor is making a point any better.

    (My being a poor communicator is different; I'm an amateur)
    Sounds a bit like Barry Goldwater in 1968. He ran on giving it straight to the American people and saying what he thought. This included such remarkable comments as 'I want to lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin and make sure I hit it,' and refusing an invitation to appear on a late night show by saying to the host, 'Thank you, but I'd prefer to watch you in bed with my wife.'

    This got to such a pass that his press officer was reduced to pleading 'Don't quote what he says, quote what he means.'

    The Republicans blamed their huge defeat on a hostile media. They were very reluctant to admit a large part of the problem was that they had picked a candidate who really did say what he meant - and that was a load of nonsense.
    Do you mean ,1964 ? Nixon won for the rebuplicans in 68.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,225
    I'd like to thank you all for your contributions to the discussion on Syria.

    As you say there are no good answers, and you have helped me to gain some understanding of the issues involved.

    Thank you.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,348
    Vince is correct.All upside for May , as she would win the vote .Would split Labour to.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    kle4 said:

    Floater said:
    Well that depends what you mean. They are seriously in contention for winning the next election after all.
    read that shit again and tell me that is a serious mp - and there are too many examples of utter crap in Labour right now.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280



    I've expressed my view clearly may times, including in the linked post. I'm unsure your first paragraph accurately condenses it.

    I think the idea that no-one should ever use chemical and biological weapons (yet alone again) is rather a good one. Do you disagree?

    No I agree. I did say on a the previous thread that I agreed with your analysis of what was happening but disagreed with your solution. Because it is no solution.

    There is absolutely no upside to what you are proposing and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future. What matters here is that Assad is sheltered by the Russians and the Iranians. As long as he has their support there is nothing we can do short oBf full scale invasion that will cause him any military grief.

    Sometimes we have to accept that situations are beyond our control. This is our Kobayashi Maru moment.
    I'm afraid that's rubbish IMV. I've expressed the major upside, which you sadly apparently do not care about.

    "and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future."

    I disagree. And neither will your apparent preferred solution of ignoring when treaties prohibiting their use are broken, which will render those same treaties worthless. In fact, I think it's obvious that'll make the situation and world security much worse.

    Anyway, I've got to get up early in the morning to go for a walk. Have a nice night everyone.
    Your 'upside' is fanciful because it is based on the idea that doing what we have done before will miraculously work this time when it has never worked before.

    The only way Assad will stop using chemical weapons is if he completely wins or completely loses. What you propose will not result in either of those scenarios.
    We did nothing in 2013 - an inaction you backed - and things have got worse. By your logic, it's fanciful to think that doing what we have done before (i.e. nothing) will miraculously work this time.

    I admire your knowledge of Assad's mindset. An answer to that is that hes not mad, and he'll do what's best for him. And if not using them is best, he won't use them. Then there are the Iranians and Russians who are propping up his regime. If they tell him not to use them on pain of being replaced by someone more malleable, he make damned sure they can't be used.

    Anyway, I really must be off to bed. Good night.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    I'm going to hazard a guess...... no
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Yorkcity said:

    Vince is correct.All upside for May , as she would win the vote .Would split Labour to.
    I disagree - even if she wins it comfortably is there really an upside? Syria will highly likely remain a mess and she won't not receive criticism for Parliament giving its say, and we know for a fact that Corbyn could face a significant rebellion from his backbenchers and even a very pointed speech criticising his position and sit there with a pouty, angry look on his face, and not a damn thing would happen in the long term for his position.

    If, as the trend seems to be, that it becomes convention parliament is consulted on such things, then I am not intrinsically opposed to that. But nor do I see that there is actually any political or public benefit to May consulting them here. If everything goes super great and it is even meaningful, she's get the same response whether parliament is consulted or not, and she won't get any cover from consulting them if it should not achieve anything or be a disaster.

    So it boils down to whether such action as is agreed is in any way a good idea, regardless of whether parliament would agree or not.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931
    edited April 12
    Floater said:

    kle4 said:

    Floater said:
    Well that depends what you mean. They are seriously in contention for winning the next election after all.
    read that shit again and tell me that is a serious mp - and there are too many examples of utter crap in Labour right now.
    These people are just thick, it's that simple.

    I can disagree with the likes of Eddie spheroid or James purnell at the best way forward, but they ain't thick.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,140

    MaxPB said:

    As I said in the previous thread, if the goal is to prevent Assad and other rogue nations from using chemical weapons then the means (lobbing in a few cruise missiles) won't achieve that. In fact all it will do is allow the Russians and Assad to make countless propaganda videos with civilians being killed by western missiles. No doubt those civilians will have been bussed in (for free if they are under 25, one imagines) to these military targets just as Hamas do in the Israel/Palestine conflict, but they will be present nonetheless.

    I've yet to see a compelling argument that anything we are ready to do as a nation or collectively via NATO will come anywhere near the goal of preventing Assad and other rogue nations from using chemical weapons.

    The era of the British and American public being willing to spend blood and treasure to defend civilians in the Middle East is well past. The polling above supports that view as well.

    If you are right, then what is your solution to this mess?

    We did nothing in 2013, and we've ended up having a chemical weapon attack on our own soil. Perhaps Richard is right and acting in 2013 would have made things worse - or perhaps he is wrong.

    But what is also obvious is that doing nothing also carries risks, just as it proved to in 2013 with the continued attacks in Syria and the spread of the war. If you advocate doing nothing, then you should at least be willing to accept the risks that will come from that decision.

    Or, preferably, offer an alternative. Please, please do, for I'm finding it blooming well difficult to think of any workable ones.
    I don't think there is one. At least not one that the public will support. Which is why we should just stay out.

    Ultimately this is a Middle East problem and it needs to be solved locally.

    I think the question that needs to be answered is "what will firing a few cruise missiles into Syria actually achieve", you and I both know the answer is "bugger all". That being the case, the follow up question is "what would it take achieve a lasting victory or at least preventing the use of chemical weapons" and the answer to that is quarter of a million NATO troops on the ground, billions of pounds and 15-20 years worth of our blood being spilled.

    I don't foresee any circumstance where Parliament or the public would support such a strategy. I certainly wouldn't.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,889



    I've expressed my view clearly may times, including in the linked post. I'm unsure your first paragraph accurately condenses it.

    I think the idea that no-one should ever use chemical and biological weapons (yet alone again) is rather a good one. Do you disagree?

    No I agree. I did say on a the previous thread that I agreed with your analysis of what was happening but disagreed with your solution. Because it is no solution.

    There is absolutely no upside to what you are proposing and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future. What matters here is that Assad is sheltered by the Russians and the Iranians. As long as he has their support there is nothing we can do short of full scale invasion that will cause him any military grief.

    Sometimes we have to accept that situations are beyond our control. This is our Kobayashi Maru moment.
    I'm afraid that's rubbish IMV. I've expressed the major upside, which you sadly apparently do not care about.

    "and it certainly won't stop either Assad or anyone else using Chemical Weapons in the future."

    I disagree. And neither will your apparent preferred solution of ignoring when treaties prohibiting their use are broken, which will render those same treaties worthless. In fact, I think it's obvious that'll make the situation and world security much worse.

    Anyway, I've got to get up early in the morning to go for a walk. Have a nice night everyone.
    Your 'upside' is fanciful because it is based on the idea that doing what we have done before will miraculously work this time when it has never worked before.

    The only way Assad will stop using chemical weapons is if he completely wins or completely loses. What you propose will not result in either of those scenarios.
    I don't know what to do, or what not to do. One should choose the lesser evil over the greater, but in Middle Eastern wars, it's so hard to distinguish them.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    Vince wants another chance to show off his nuclear missile
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Floater said:

    kle4 said:

    Floater said:
    Well that depends what you mean. They are seriously in contention for winning the next election after all.
    read that shit again and tell me that is a serious mp - and there are too many examples of utter crap in Labour right now.
    It was incoherent rubbish, but I don't think that matters for a party overall. Heck, being incoherent and rubbish doesn't matter for plenty of individual MPs, they get returned easily enough.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108

    @Anazina

    Does 'half-hearted hawkishness', mean there is a 'half-hearted hawk'?

    That must be a very rare and peculiar bird; I wouldn't let @MarqueeMark know about its existence, or he'll probably go chasing it down with his binoculars ... ;)

    Never seen one of them.

    There is, however, a New Zealand bird that rejoices in the name of the Rough-faced Shag.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,383
    IDS and Blair say we've got to bomb Syria.

    How about a new Solvite commercial where we stick both of them on the front of a cruise missile.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931
    edited April 12

    twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/984540347106816000

    Call me cynical, but isnt this rather a good time for this story to come out as the attention is all on syria.
  • Theresa May’s officials could be lining up to keep the U.K. in the European customs union after Brexit, according to a new analysis that chimes with the views of parts of the British government.

    Some of May’s officials think that quitting the customs union in order to win the power to strike free trade agreements with countries such as the U.S. or Australia is not as desirable as passionate Brexit supporters believe.

    Such trade deals with third countries can take a long time to negotiate and end up mired in litigation, while measures short of formal FTAs can still deliver significant benefits, one person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private.

    Added to this, the growing view in May’s office is that, after a narrow referendum result and a close general election, she has no mandate for an extreme Brexit, according to an official.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-11/may-s-brexit-red-line-on-customs-union-could-be-next-to-go
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,434
    World Tonight: Vince Cable calls for Parliament to be recalled over the weekend.
  • twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/984540347106816000

    Call me cynical, but isnt this rather a good time for this story to come out as the attention is all on syria.
    Yup better to come out now rather than during the Tory leadership contest.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481
    I see the Russian bots are tweeting against Theresa May as their first priority tonight.

    https://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 12
    No! It must be Gauke, I have money on him! (It's too late to be Gauke, I know).

    And so ends the Hunt as leader speculation?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 12


    Added to this, the growing view in May’s office is that, after a narrow referendum result and a close general election, she has no mandate for an extreme Brexit, according to an official.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-11/may-s-brexit-red-line-on-customs-union-could-be-next-to-go

    I seem to recall such calm headed PBers as, er, SeanT, saying the same thing in the days and weeks after the Referendum.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481
    The Russians denied the chemical attacks before they even happened.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-trolls-denied-syrian-gas-attackbefore-it-happened?ref=home
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    Theresa May’s officials could be lining up to keep the U.K. in the European customs union after Brexit, according to a new analysis that chimes with the views of parts of the British government.

    Some of May’s officials think that quitting the customs union in order to win the power to strike free trade agreements with countries such as the U.S. or Australia is not as desirable as passionate Brexit supporters believe.

    Such trade deals with third countries can take a long time to negotiate and end up mired in litigation, while measures short of formal FTAs can still deliver significant benefits, one person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private.

    Added to this, the growing view in May’s office is that, after a narrow referendum result and a close general election, she has no mandate for an extreme Brexit, according to an official.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-11/may-s-brexit-red-line-on-customs-union-could-be-next-to-go

    I read that report on Bloomberg two days ago. Good news if true
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481

    Theresa May’s officials could be lining up to keep the U.K. in the European customs union after Brexit, according to a new analysis that chimes with the views of parts of the British government.

    Some of May’s officials think that quitting the customs union in order to win the power to strike free trade agreements with countries such as the U.S. or Australia is not as desirable as passionate Brexit supporters believe.

    Such trade deals with third countries can take a long time to negotiate and end up mired in litigation, while measures short of formal FTAs can still deliver significant benefits, one person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private.

    Added to this, the growing view in May’s office is that, after a narrow referendum result and a close general election, she has no mandate for an extreme Brexit, according to an official.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-11/may-s-brexit-red-line-on-customs-union-could-be-next-to-go

    There is nothing extreme about not being in a customs union with your neighbours. Remainers certainly wouldn't have taken a vote to stay as being about no more integration.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    Once all the red lines have been whittled away and we have a Brexit in name only deal, that's the time to offer a second referendum with a choice between the deal and Remain.
  • The country has moved on.

    The Tory Party literally now has a black MP with the surname 'Bad Enoch'
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Calls for Radio 4 to cancel show that will critique anti-immigration speech 50 years on

    Says right there - critique it.

    Isn't this just the 'we cannot trust the public to hear terrible things, because they are all racists waiting to happen' argument we got when Nick Griffin was on QT?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481

    Once all the red lines have been whittled away and we have a Brexit in name only deal, that's the time to offer a second referendum with a choice between the deal and Remain.

    Yes, the only referendum the EU could win is one where Brexit isn't on the menu. You people clearly despise genuine democracy. The people are just there to be manipulated with forced choices.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,383
    What is it about the South Yorkshire police?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,552
    Please see today's UK Column News around 10 minutes in:



    Vanessa Beeley, who I have met, has done tireless work on the ground in Syria, and has been there in the past week, unlike many mainstream media reporters who do their reporting on Syria from Beirut.....so how would they have prime source evidence of yet another alleged chemical weapons attack? Why would it be in the interests of the Assad regime to launch a chemical weapons attack when they're winning the war?

    I personally would put a million times more trust in Vanessa's account of events in Syria. Once again the old adage applies - follow the money. Another great article by Martin Armstrong today on why tragically the West needs war:

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/war-is-coming-because-we-need-it/

    We've been here in history before. With the idiots that we have in charge of things right now, they seem destined to repeat the same mistakes that have been made throughout history. Many people should be asking why is the UK government supporting this vile abuse going on in Syria?

    And I quote from the following article:

    "The White Helmets, the Free Syrian Police, the Local Councils in terrorist held areas of Syria – are all being financed, promoted, equipped and supported by the UK FCO in its campaign to undermine the Syrian state, its people & its leadership. Money that is taken under false pretences through taxation is almost certainly funding terrorism that has undergone various branding, and rebranding schemes in order to conceal this nefarious activity.

    Questions must not only be asked, they must be answered, and a full investigation into what has been “done in our name” should be demanded, so we may stem the flow of cash-for-terror into Syria, before we too, are implicated in the criminal, rogue-state foreign policy of our morally bankrupt government and its allies in the imperialist War Bloc."

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/12/02/white-helmets-local-councils-uk-fco-financing-terrorism-syria-taxpayer-funds/

    And to think that the government has stooped so low that it says it doesn't require Commons backing for action in Syria. It is utterly obscene what this government is doing with regards to Syria right now.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481

    Anorak said:

    FPT:

    Anazina said:

    I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.

    I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.

    If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.

    Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.

    Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.

    If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.

    (*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
    Perfectly put. It's not about revenge, or bombing innocents, or getting aroused by large explosions. It's about morality and necessary repercussions for indefensible and - and I use the word quite deliberately - evil acts.
    That is not what JJ has claimed. He has said it is about stopping Assad or others using these weapons again. It is, in his view, about deterrent. And in that this will fail utterly.

    As I said earlier this cannot be about morality because we already crossed that particular moral line decades ago when we helped our chosen son in the Middle East to use chemical weapons against his neighbours.
    That is like saying we should not have got involved in fighting slavery because we were once heavily involved in the slave trade.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931
    edited April 12
    Roger said:
    Why the BBC didn't just apologise like the plod and move on is beyond me.

    Instead it is now being built up into some massive test case and could end up being extremely expensive.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    hunchman said:



    And to think that the government has stooped so low that it says it doesn't require Commons backing for action in Syria.

    Ignoring, for a moment, the rest of your post, the question of whether Commons backing is required for action in Syria is surely a question of legal procedure and politics, speaking nothing as to the government stooping low or not - if the Executive has the authority to do it, then it isn't stooping low to say they don't require Commons backing, even if it is the wrong thing to do, and even if it would be a good idea to get Commons backing. It would be true.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,147
    Stories have it that Russia expects to get advance notice of the strikes so that it has its people out of the way, if it hasn't got the info already. They have done the evacuations of their own and Syrian material into clearly consolidated locations so have concluded that any strike will not really do much damage, i.e. its symbolic

    One US outlet reports a target scope of around 8 locations, some of which are probably empty of anything useful. Thats unlikely to put a dent in Assad regime's interest in using chemical weapons.

    Either these different but consistent reports proves 100% or someone is in for a very rude shock.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,795

    The country has moved on.

    The Tory Party literally now has a black MP with the surname 'Bad Enoch'
    Nicknamed 'Jim' (Hacker)?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 1,987
    Everyone is missing the MOST IMPORTANT question about the Syria crisis:

    Is Assad pro or anti Corbyn?
  • The country has moved on.

    The Tory Party literally now has a black MP with the surname 'Bad Enoch'
    Nicknamed 'Jim' (Hacker)?
    Chapeau
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711

    Everyone is missing the MOST IMPORTANT question about the Syria crisis:

    Is Assad pro or anti Corbyn?

    For fun I tried to put that into Google to see what would come up, and accidentally pasted it into a ebay search bar instead- 0 results, but the first imperfect result it came up with was a 'F*** ISIS' T shirt.
This discussion has been closed.