Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
I don’t know. I’m not neither a military strategist, nor do I have access to the necessary intelligence. I can not articulate the degrees of escalation, and not can i appraise their risks.
What I do know is that doing nothing sends as clear a message as doing something. To argue for nothing is the counsel of despair.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
From my perspective, that would depend on the exact circumstances. But if you jail someone for a crime, you don't ignore a repeat offence from the same person.
"It's no good locking him up; it didn't work last time."
The difference between that situation and this one is that we have the capability to lock up said criminal and prevent him from being a danger to society. We don't have the capability, or at least the will, to stop chemical weapons in Syria. Whatever you might say, we all know that there is no way we stop Assad from using chemical weapons without regime change and pushing Russia out of Syria with a huge invasion force.
One thing we have learnt from this whole episode: no country thinking of developing, manufacturing or deploying chemical weapons need worry about censure from Jeremy Corbyn.
One thing we have learnt from this whole episode: no country thinking of developing, manufacturing or deploying chemical weapons need worry about censure from Jeremy Corbyn.
As you are, guys.
Also no matter what, the Russians didn’t do it....
The maomentum fake new sites are still pushing all these conspiracy theories about how there is doubt Russia were involved.
Infowars and maomentum sites different cheeks of the same arse...would love to know where their funding comes from.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
Russian now has fair warning of what happens if you stand inside a chemical weapons facility in Syria.
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
Another pupil from the Theresa May school of logicical thought
It was tongue in cheek, Roger, but the totally serious point is apparently May does have the authority to make decisions without consulting parliament, so there is nothing legally questionable there, and my personal view is that talking of international law is pointless, since nations have outright invaded others and claimed no international law was broken, their opponents will never agree, so what does that even matter. In which case calling it legally questionable is just pussyfooting around.
I'd also point out I don't even support the strikes, nor did I support Iraq, so I am technically on Corbyn's side on this one - I just think the legally questionable part is a nonsense in this instance, and that they should have the balls to say they think it is illegal if that is what they think.
If nothing else, how can he criticise May in full throated fashion for 'maybe' doing something illegal. 'How dare you do something that is possibly illegal?' 'So is it illegal or not?' 'Maybe' 'So maybe it is fine then?'
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
LOL, exactly , these turkeys made sure anybody who could sort them out had 3 days to move out. How the Russians must laugh at Dumb and Dumber.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
Russian now has fair warning of what happens if you stand inside a chemical weapons facility in Syria.
I don't think the PM or any military commanders are going approve air strikes against Russian targets and get us into a proxy war with them.
I guess the only way would be to make the strikes so broad and sweeping that it forces Russia to slink back from Syria, but civilian casualties in such a war would be devastatingly high. I'm not convinced that we have the stomach to wage such a war any more.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
Maybe if she was so diligent against hte despots we support people may hav edifferent views. We pick and choose who we bomb based on how much money we make from them. Lives are worthless if we can make a profit out of the despot in charge.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
Russian now has fair warning of what happens if you stand inside a chemical weapons facility in Syria.
Yes you get 3 days to pack your bags and order a taxi.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
Russian now has fair warning of what happens if you stand inside a chemical weapons facility in Syria.
I don't think the PM or any military commanders are going approve air strikes against Russian targets and get us into a proxy war with them.
I guess the only way would be to make the strikes so broad and sweeping that it forces Russia to slink back from Syria, but civilian casualties in such a war would be devastatingly high. I'm not convinced that we have the stomach to wage such a war any more.
If you read around a bit there has already been action against Russian contractors at least in this murky theatre.
Nevertheless, of course we are not going to deliberately target Russian collateral. We don’t have the stomach, and never have had the stomach for wanton and reckless escalation against a major power.
Well if the DUP says it's OK that's good enough for me
Even those often wrong can be right sometimes.
I think that Corbyn's statement about questionable legality is pretty good circumstantial evidence the action is legal - I dont think milne woukd miss the chance to just say it was illegal if it was even mildly possible to be do. Clegg and Co used to call Iraq illegal all the time iirc.
Another pupil from the Theresa May school of logicical thought
It was tongue in cheek, Roger, but the totally serious point is apparently May does have the authority to make decisions without consulting parliament, so there is nothing legally questionable there, and my personal view is that talking of international law is pointless, since nations have outright invaded others and claimed no international law was broken, their opponents will never agree, so what does that even matter. In which case calling it legally questionable is just pussyfooting around.
I'd also point out I don't even support the strikes, nor did I support Iraq, so I am technically on Corbyn's side on this one - I just think the legally questionable part is a nonsense in this instance, and that they should have the balls to say they think it is illegal if that is what they think.
If nothing else, how can he criticise May in full throated fashion for 'maybe' doing something illegal. 'How dare you do something that is possibly illegal?' 'So is it illegal or not?' 'Maybe' 'So maybe it is fine then?'
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
You make an interesting point. It's not obvious why chemical weapons should be singled out. I imagine it dates from a time when warfare involved people shooting with rifles or small cannon and it wasn't considered sporting not to see where your opponent was shooting from. In a time of nuclear weapons making this distinction is clearly preposterous.
If it is preposterous, we need to re examine the CWC, but until we have done that we need to stand by our commitments.
These are worrying times; the single thing which gives me most confidence that we are not making fools of ourselves is that the notoriously difficult and bloody-minded (about everything, but military affairs especially) French are with us. I am surprised that you, as a major francophile and euphile, don't feel the same. Is Macron any less wrong than May, if she is wrong?
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
I don’t think that’s quite right - such chemicals can be extremely effective, if delivered in an ideal manner. One of the reasons for the chemical weapons treaties is that they prevent large scale research into weaponisation / delivery methods.
The ‘novichoks’ reportedly have varying characteristics. The one used in Salisbury was a non volatile substance intended to be persistent for area denial.
Everything is effective if delivered in an ideal manner. If you can get people underground in an area without much ventilation for example. This seems to have been why the one Syria was so harmful. People were sheltering from other fighting and so couldn't get away. A tragic circumstance but hardly one that happens very often.
You obviously know a lot more about the Salisbury attack than I do. I haven't heard how volatile the chemical in question is, and its actual chemical nature hasn't been released. But I would have thought for a targeted attack you'd want something that didn't persist? I recognised the decontaminant brand name on the footage. It was one suitable for dilution of a water soluble agent, and seems to have worked as nobody else has been affected since.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
LOL, exactly , these turkeys made sure anybody who could sort them out had 3 days to move out. How the Russians must laugh at Dumb and Dumber.
Disagree with David Herdson about the 2013 vote. It was a bad mistake and sent the message that use of chemical weapons would go unpunished. Ed Miliband and Obama between them are responsible for much of this mess now.
This action should send a clear message to Assad about the likely cost of future transgressions and it's worth it for that alone, irrespective of the actual damage caused.The West's inability to do everything should not mean we don't do anything.
Disagree with David Herdson about the 2013 vote. It was a bad mistake and sent the message that use of chemical weapons would go unpunished. Ed Miliband and Obama between them are responsible for much of this mess now.
This action should send a clear message to Assad about the likely cost of future transgressions and it's worth it for that alone, irrespective of the actual damage caused.The West's inability to do everything should not mean we don't do anything.
Obama has a lot to answer for...he made a big play of his red line, then oh fuck it I will go golfing instead.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
LOL, exactly , these turkeys made sure anybody who could sort them out had 3 days to move out. How the Russians must laugh at Dumb and Dumber.
Um, that was deliberate, malc.
Yes and union Jack Marquee was trying to say we had scared the pants off the Russians with our toughness.
Mr. Barnesian, though this won't get much play, the simple truth may be that banning guns and bombs is impossible, whereas restricting/banning nukes, chemical and biological weapons is at least possible.
Stopping the proliferation of chemical weapons is no bad thing. Not least because terrorists would be more than happy to use any variety of WMD, from chlorine gas to dirty bombs, if they could. Dr. Foxy, hmm. I did read here (it was quite some time ago) that the Soviets did it. The point, however, stands.
I take your point that nations should agree to ban mass civilian killing weapons where they can. As an aside I find it incomprehensible that NATO does not follow the lead of China and India and commit to No First Use (NFU) of nuclear weapons. In 1982 Russia also pledged NFU but has reversed its stance possibly as a result of the NATO stance.
I welcome the development of smart AI drones aimed at particular players. It spares innocent civilians and acts as a disincentive to "playing". Leaders won't like it though.
Treaties won't stop terrorists.
Last time I looked - admittedly that may have been five years ago - India had refused to sign the NPT.
Pakistan and Israel also have N weapons and haven't signed the NPT ... unless I've been too busy and missed an awful lot of diplomacy and peace-making. By contrast, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and apparently Libya were successfully steered away from N weapons.
Iran is clearly building borderline facilities but *has* signed the NPT which is an odd combination. The other three above aren't in breach of the NPT if they never signed it.
Didn't the Soviet Union have a committment to no first use?
It was No First Use (NFU) that I was referring to, rather than the NPT (Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons).
I find it very strange that the UK is prepared to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively (i.e. not just as a deterrent) yet gets all shirty about the use of chlorine in someone else's war.
Perhaps Jez.... But if it degrade's Assad's ability to use chemical weapons on his people for a while it will have achieved something though?
GIN, come on pull the other one, it will achieve nothing.
I don't know. @Y0kel said after the 2017 targeted action Assad didn't use chemical weapons for a year.
If last nights very limited actions means we can go another 12 months without children being gassed to death isn't that probably a good thing? Maybe?
So they just bomb and shoot them instead, great idea.
What Assad did was bomb them so civilians hid in cellars, and then used gas that sank into the cellars to kill them.
Do you think that stopping the 2nd step might be a good idea?
What I think is we don't care a jot about Syria, they have been killing civilians for 7 years and all we did was help by bombing them as well and also arming another set of nutjobs to join in the melee. Then we have crocodile tears that we are upset that women and children have died, it is pretty pathetic and phony in my opinion. There are many other conflicts etc where despots are killing civilians , we only pick and choose where we intervene and it always is coincidental that where we make money we never seem to intervene.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
Russian now has fair warning of what happens if you stand inside a chemical weapons facility in Syria.
Yes you get 3 days to pack your bags and order a taxi.
Not next time, Malc.
Dangerous places, chemical weapons plants. They can explode without warning.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
The only reason I can think of that we joined these strikes was to repay some of the solidarity the US and others showed us with Salisbury. The missiles have made no difference.
Agreed on Corbyn and not needing a debate though.
I think if we are going to take military action then it needs to be decisive, putting anything to parliament makes any decision making process much slower and any chance of decisive action is long past.
They do make a difference.
First, they are not nothing. The West - of which the U.K. is still a senior power - is serious about maintaining the chemical weapons red line.
Second, they are not a reckless escalation. The strikes were carefully targeted to avoid, for eg, Russian capability - arranged via back channels.
Third, they aim to degrade Syria’s ability to continue chemical weapon production. We won’t know how successful the strikes are in this aim, but again we cannot say they are worthless.
Fourth, they leave open the possibility of further action in response to new intelligence on chemical weapon manufacture or usage.
Fifth, they are widely supported by our allies across the rest of the West, and criticised by the usual suspects and useful idiots.
Good job, May.
Hmm, so when the next chemical weapons attack takes place what will we do in response?
Same again. But next time, the Russians shouldn't expect the courtsesy of fair advance notice....
So we're going to bomb Russian targets? That would be a brave decision.
Russian now has fair warning of what happens if you stand inside a chemical weapons facility in Syria.
Yes you get 3 days to pack your bags and order a taxi.
Not next time, Malc.
Dangerous places, chemical weapons plants. They can explode without warning.
Not while we are led by donkeys unfortunately. Must be off , time to get the Begonias potted up before Grand national time.
Perhaps Jez.... But if it degrade's Assad's ability to use chemical weapons on his people for a while it will have achieved something though?
GIN, come on pull the other one, it will achieve nothing.
I don't know. @Y0kel said after the 2017 targeted action Assad didn't use chemical weapons for a year.
If last nights very limited actions means we can go another 12 months without children being gassed to death isn't that probably a good thing? Maybe?
So they just bomb and shoot them instead, great idea.
What Assad did was bomb them so civilians hid in cellars, and then used gas that sank into the cellars to kill them.
Do you think that stopping the 2nd step might be a good idea?
What I think is we don't care a jot about Syria, they have been killing civilians for 7 years and all we did was help by bombing them as well and also arming another set of nutjobs to join in the melee. Then we have crocodile tears that we are upset that women and children have died, it is pretty pathetic and phony in my opinion. There are many other conflicts etc where despots are killing civilians , we only pick and choose where we intervene and it always is coincidental that where we make money we never seem to intervene.
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
You make an interesting point. It's not obvious why chemical weapons should be singled out. I imagine it dates from a time when warfare involved people shooting with rifles or small cannon and it wasn't considered sporting not to see where your opponent was shooting from. In a time of nuclear weapons making this distinction is clearly preposterous.
If it is preposterous, we need to re examine the CWC, but until we have done that we need to stand by our commitments.
These are worrying times; the single thing which gives me most confidence that we are not making fools of ourselves is that the notoriously difficult and bloody-minded (about everything, but military affairs especially) French are with us. I am surprised that you, as a major francophile and euphile, don't feel the same. Is Macron any less wrong than May, if she is wrong?
I am surprised at Macron. Had he been someone else I might have suspected he was trying to distract attention from the current chaos on the french railways. I'm serious but you make a good point. May is happy to be Trump's poodle. Her motivation stinks. That doesn't apply to Macron or the French which is one of the reasons criticism of May has been muted.
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be. The first gas attack in the First World War, carried out by the French, was so lacking in impact that the Germans didn't even notice it. Chemicals are handled every day with very few problems or accidents. There are some exceptions. Bhopal for example was pretty bad. But on the whole if you want to do harm firing missiles is much more deadly than releasing gases.
You make an interesting point. It's not obvious why chemical weapons should be singled out. I imagine it dates from a time when warfare involved people shooting with rifles or small cannon and it wasn't considered sporting not to see where your opponent was shooting from. In a time of nuclear weapons making this distinction is clearly preposterous.
If it is preposterous, we need to re examine the CWC, but until we have done that we need to stand by our commitments.
These are worrying times; the single thing which gives me most confidence that we are not making fools of ourselves is that the notoriously difficult and bloody-minded (about everything, but military affairs especially) French are with us. I am surprised that you, as a major francophile and euphile, don't feel the same. Is Macron any less wrong than May, if she is wrong?
I am surprised at Macron. Had he been someone else I might have suspected he was trying to distract attention from the current chaos on the french railways. I'm serious but you make a good point. May is happy to be Trump's poodle. Her motivation stinks. That doesn't apply to Macron or the French which is one of the reasons criticism of May has been muted.
The reason criticism of May has been muted is that it was the right thing to do.
Disagree with David Herdson about the 2013 vote. It was a bad mistake and sent the message that use of chemical weapons would go unpunished. Ed Miliband and Obama between them are responsible for much of this mess now.
This action should send a clear message to Assad about the likely cost of future transgressions and it's worth it for that alone, irrespective of the actual damage caused.The West's inability to do everything should not mean we don't do anything.
So the Prime Minister can't get enough of those MPs on his side of the House to support him, and that's the Leader of the Opposition's fault.
Cameron's Grand Old Duke of York impression was entirely down to Dave himself.
Anyway, we are now bombing both* sides in a civil war. That must be a first.
*The main two. Other sides are also involved. However, our NATO allies in Turkey are bombing them.
Disagree with David Herdson about the 2013 vote. It was a bad mistake and sent the message that use of chemical weapons would go unpunished. Ed Miliband and Obama between them are responsible for much of this mess now.
This action should send a clear message to Assad about the likely cost of future transgressions and it's worth it for that alone, irrespective of the actual damage caused.The West's inability to do everything should not mean we don't do anything.
So the Prime Minister can't get enough of those MPs on his side of the House to support him, and that's the Leader of the Opposition's fault.
Cameron's Grand Old Duke of York impression was entirely down to Dave himself.
Anyway, we are now bombing both* sides in a civil war. That must be a first.
*The main two. Other sides are also involved. However, our NATO allies in Turkey are bombing them.
I can think of two others, in 1920-21 and 1936-39 (arguably until 1948).
However, they were colonial wars where both sides in addition to shooting at each other were also shooting at us. So I'm not sure they're exact parallels.
Disagree with David Herdson about the 2013 vote. It was a bad mistake and sent the message that use of chemical weapons would go unpunished. Ed Miliband and Obama between them are responsible for much of this mess now.
This action should send a clear message to Assad about the likely cost of future transgressions and it's worth it for that alone, irrespective of the actual damage caused.The West's inability to do everything should not mean we don't do anything.
So the Prime Minister can't get enough of those MPs on his side of the House to support him, and that's the Leader of the Opposition's fault.
Cameron's Grand Old Duke of York impression was entirely down to Dave himself.
Anyway, we are now bombing both* sides in a civil war. That must be a first.
*The main two. Other sides are also involved. However, our NATO allies in Turkey are bombing them.
Ok let's do nothing then and just stand by and let Assad use gas on his people.
As far as I can tell this missile strike is a gesture. It looks like the Americans have done a deal with the Russians to target away from their operations in exchange for Russia not doing anything in response. I don't think even Assad will be too troubled by it.
Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.
Ed Miliband acted in a disgusting duplicitous way.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed tp.bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Really? So where do MaxPB and CD13 and Twisted Firestopper and I (along with plenty of other posters on here) fit into that? Certainly none of us admire Putin in any way. And we sure as hell are not diehard leftwingers.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
As a staunch long term Brexiteer you are not miles away from Kippers, I believe you have even voted UKIP
Your exact quote was 'a few kippers who admire Putin'. Which as I am sure you will recognise is utter bollocks.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed to bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
I think I disagree with this. Posters appear to be coalescing around several views:
*) That action needs taking to protect the treaties, amongst other reasons. *) The the treaties should be protected, but this isn't the way to do it. *) That the treaties are worthless and should be ripped up. *) Boo! Hiss! Tories!
Apart from the obvious one, there seems little correlation between the views and the political inclinations. And on the whole the discussions on here have been fairly good.
I would add s fifth one because it's what I think, which is that the missile strikes are symbolic because no-one is prepared to take the action necessary to protect the treaties (for possibly good reasons), but nevertheless want to make a statement.
I agree - thought that is surely a subset of the first option ?
One of the arguments in favour of being part of the coalition, is that any action requiring the agreement of France and the UK is likely to be subject to more constraints...
It's different in the claim made for it. Josias' group, I think, believes the action is not just right but absolutely necessary. My view is that it doesn't have much practical effect. If you think action is necessary, this is displacement at best.
More on this fifth and I suspect largest group. Their absolute red line is no involvement beyond the immediate action and no commitment to situations you don't control. Limited use air strikes can be discussed in that context. Which is where David Cameron went wrong with this group. There's no point personalizing it to Ed Miliband. He reflected public opinion as it was at the time. Cameron failed to carry parliament, much of his party or the country. In any case action on that basis is non essential and of limited use - it's not going to change the facts on the ground.
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed tp.bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Really? So where do MaxPB and CD13 and Twisted Firestopper and I (along with plenty of other posters on here) fit into that? Certainly none of us admire Putin in any way. And we sure as hell are not diehard leftwingers.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
As a staunch long term Brexiteer you are not miles away from Kippers, I believe you have even voted UKIP
Your exact quote was 'a few kippers who admire Putin'. Which as I am sure you will recognise is utter bollocks.
This leads me to wonder - should those Kippers like Nigel Farage who admire Putin be called red herrings?
I see sky news have Peter somebody on again (former uk ambassador to Syria) who is an apologist for Assad and another pushing conspiracy theories that it was a hoax attack by ISIS.
Like Craig Murray, how did they ever their high profile roles.
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be.
Since one of those who developed it died a very slow and painful death as a result of exposure, I doubt that somehow.
Some though provoking posts this morning. Having read around the subject, it seems to me that chemical weapons are not of huge military use unless used against unprotected populations. As such Syria is important as it is a step to the normalisation of their use in civil war situations. If we don't stand up to this now then what is to prevent governments choosing to use them in future cleansing activity?
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
Complete rubbish, those who are most opposed tp.bombing Assad even after he massacred civilians are diehard leftwingers and Russiaphiles who would never vote Tory anyway plus a few Kippers who admire Putin
Really? So where do MaxPB and CD13 and Twisted Firestopper and I (along with plenty of other posters on here) fit into that? Certainly none of us admire Putin in any way. And we sure as hell are not diehard leftwingers.
Ever thought you might actually by talking rubbish?
As a staunch long term Brexiteer you are not miles away from Kippers, I believe you have even voted UKIP
Your exact quote was 'a few kippers who admire Putin'. Which as I am sure you will recognise is utter bollocks.
This leads me to wonder - should those Kippers like Nigel Farage who admire Putin be called red herrings?
LOL. That is brilliant. I can think of a few more choice words to call them though.
You may have missed it but there was the biggest show of strength ever this week by China showing the naval capacity it has built up since the Opium Wars of the 19th century and 80 further instances of western imperialism since taught them about their strategical weakness from the ocean.
Jesus just googled that peter ford who just been on sky, he has been claiming time after time previous attacks by Assad regime were hoax’s. For past 10 years he has been a defender of assad...and he was employed to be on “our side”.
He makes Jezza look like a believer. How the hell did he and Craig Murray get high profile roles representing the uk on the international stage.
Perhaps Jez.... But if it degrade's Assad's ability to use chemical weapons on his people for a while it will have achieved something though?
GIN, come on pull the other one, it will achieve nothing.
I don't know. @Y0kel said after the 2017 targeted action Assad didn't use chemical weapons for a year.
If last nights very limited actions means we can go another 12 months without children being gassed to death isn't that probably a good thing? Maybe?
So they just bomb and shoot them instead, great idea.
What Assad did was bomb them so civilians hid in cellars, and then used gas that sank into the cellars to kill them.
Do you think that stopping the 2nd step might be a good idea?
What I think is we don't care a jot about Syria, they have been killing civilians for 7 years and all we did was help by bombing them as well and also arming another set of nutjobs to join in the melee. Then we have crocodile tears that we are upset that women and children have died, it is pretty pathetic and phony in my opinion. There are many other conflicts etc where despots are killing civilians , we only pick and choose where we intervene and it always is coincidental that where we make money we never seem to intervene.
Yemen you mean ?
Yes but those nice Saudis are our allies and so beyond reproach (and yes they pay us huge sums of money as well)
Congratulations to Theresa May for taking the right decision.
These strikes are necessary, and I back her and our armed forces 100%.
Jeremy Corbyn has just won the next election.
I think I disagree with this. Posters appear to be coalescing around several views:
*) That action needs taking to protect the treaties, amongst other reasons. *) The the treaties should be protected, but this isn't the way to do it. *) That the treaties are worthless and should be ripped up. *) Boo! Hiss! Tories!
Apart from the obvious one, there seems little correlation between the views and the political inclinations. And on the whole the discussions on here have been fairly good.
I would add s fifth one because it's what I think, which is that the missile strikes are symbolic because no-one is prepared to take the action necessary to protect the treaties (for possibly good reasons), but nevertheless want to make a statement.
I agree - thought that is surely a subset of the first option ?
One of the arguments in favour of being part of the coalition, is that any action requiring the agreement of France and the UK is likely to be subject to more constraints...
It's different in the claim made for it. Josias' group, I think, believes the action is not just right but absolutely necessary. My view is that it doesn't have much practical effect. If you think action is necessary, this is displacement at best.
More on this fifth and I suspect largest group. Their absolute red line is no involvement beyond the immediate action and no commitment to situations you don't control. Limited use air strikes can be discussed in that context. Which is where David Cameron went wrong with this group. There's no point personalizing it to Ed Miliband. He reflected public opinion as it was at the time. Cameron failed to carry parliament, much of his party or the country. In any case action on that basis is non essential and of limited use - it's not going to change the facts on the ground.
I agree with this. I'm also a part of this fifth group - not to be confused with a column
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be.
Since one of those who developed it died a very slow and painful death as a result of exposure, I doubt that somehow.
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be.
Since one of those who developed it died a very slow and painful death as a result of exposure, I doubt that somehow.
As far as I can tell this missile strike is a gesture. It looks like the Americans have done a deal with the Russians to target away from their operations in exchange for Russia not doing anything in response. I don't think even Assad will be too troubled by it.
Quite simply David Cameron failed to make a case for war in 2013. Ed Miliband was almost pleading with him to give some purpose and direction.
Ed Miliband acted in a disgusting duplicitous way.
Tory backbenchers are the only reason Cameron didnt get the vote through
Do you have any preference between the named options?
Sorry for the massive delay in replying. I went out leafleting for the local elections right after posting my comment.
At the moment I'd probably lean towards Swinson as being the best option to get us noticed again - but I'm open persuasion if other candidates show they have what it takes.
Amazing what’s become of this country, if a couple of targeted strikes at a kiddy-poisoning regime should be so controversial.
May took the right decision.
She does not need parliament’s consent, though of course in due course there will be a debate.
Corbyn has disgraced himself again. He is beneath contempt.
Tyndall doing his usual armchair nihilism meets appeasement. Sad.
I believe the public will think differently.Happy.
I think you're right. My guess would be most people want this war to be ended and the ONLY outcome that can achieve that is that Assad resumes power and his ragtag enemies are defeated.
The public are wise enough to realize that drawing a distinction between the chlorine bomb allegedly delivered by Assad and those delivered by any of the other combatants is splitting hairs. If he had the smart bombs the UK or US have I'm sure he wouldn't be using such primitive weapons.
After Iraq the public are less believing of the warlike instincts of our politicians and much less believing of our intelligence services.
Trump has the respect of almost no one so following him in this sort of endeavour wont be popular and anyone who listened to his speech at 2.30 this morning will be feeling nauseous. It was the worst leaders address I've heard
This article is a bit down on Theresa. We all need to get with the new narrative: a foolish and petulant public failed to give Theresa the landslide she was owed but is slowly realizing that it is lucky to have her. A little less ingratitude, which still lingers in certain quarters, wouldn't go amiss.
Just perambulated with the hound. Hopefully some sort of value will appear before me for the race...
Vettel is a lot shorter than he was earlier for the win, everyone else has gone out. Bottas 16. Bottas at just about evs for a podium (2.06) Williamses at 5 each to score a point. No SC 2.1. (All on Betfair)
As a non chemist if you bombed a chemical weapons facility wouldn't you spread the poison? I've just heard an English resident of Damascus say one of the facilities hit was close to his house.
Speaking as a chemist, chemicals on the whole are nowhere near as dangerous as non-chemists suppose. Quite apart from anything else about the Salisbury story, I imagine the developers of Novichok are rather disappointed at how ineffective it turned out to be.
Since one of those who developed it died a very slow and painful death as a result of exposure, I doubt that somehow.
Mr. Sandpit, to be honest, don't fancy the odds on any of those. Did see no safety car, but with reliability and tyres being as they are, that could easily fail.
One of those situations where I'd just sit it out if I didn't offer a tip every race. Considering Hamilton for the win, hedged.
Mr. Sandpit, to be honest, don't fancy the odds on any of those. Did see no safety car, but with reliability and tyres being as they are, that could easily fail.
One of those situations where I'd just sit it out if I didn't offer a tip every race. Considering Hamilton for the win, hedged.
I don’t disagree, there’s not been an awful lot of obvious value so far this season. Lewis at 5.3 for the win, which is a little stingy when he starts 4th.
It’s going to be a tactical race, possibly between 2 and 3 stops, but one stop might be possible for the top 4 on a counter strategy. Assuming that pit stops all finish with four wheels on a car and no mechanics heading to the hospital.
Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.
Mr. Sandpit, annoyingly, I was quite confident about all my previous race bets and every single one had bad luck attached (the VSC/safety car screwed Raikkonen/no safety car, and Ricciardo was the only straightforward retiree due to reliability last time).
Grargh. I'm back to wondering about Red Bull. Which reminds me, they start ultrasoft so may have an advantage off the line.
For me, this is a pretty simple question. Does international law matter, or not matter.
A message needed to be sent that Chemical Weapons cannot be tolerated. Whilst this won't change a huge amount on the ground, it's infinitely better than Corbyn's impotence.
Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.
Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.
But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.
Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.
Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.
But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.
He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.
The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
This is the problem. I don't know the answer, as it concerns us.
twitter.com/LizSly/status/985116039078957057
It is classic Middle Eastern propaganda. They do it come what may.
Compared with what Assad has faced so far, including losing most of his army, this strike was nothing. If you think Something Must Be Done, then something was done. But that's it. Russia put its troops into Syria and in harm's way, and made the difference. I'm not suggesting we should even consider doing the same.
So Assad has won. The West is just putting up a bit of a show of strength to offset the defeat a bit. Can we talk about something else now.
He was winning before but we just told him he can’t win quickly with chemical weapons. Do it the hard way Bashir old boy.
Barrel bombs on hospitals and starvation sieges it is then. It is not Assad that will suffer.
If you have any wonderful alternatives then Donald would love to hear them.
Sometimres there are no good alternatives, but this is not our war. At least it wasn't until today.
There are no easy answers but a message has rightly been sent to Assad and any future despots planning to use chemical weapons - there will be consequences.
Really? The bombing of a few probably empty buildings? You really think this does anything except highlight how utterly impotent the West is? This was nothing more than armed virtue signalling.
Would you rather we struck them when the staff were there?
Mr. Sandpit, annoyingly, I was quite confident about all my previous race bets and every single one had bad luck attached (the VSC/safety car screwed Raikkonen/no safety car, and Ricciardo was the only straightforward retiree due to reliability last time).
Grargh. I'm back to wondering about Red Bull. Which reminds me, they start ultrasoft so may have an advantage off the line.
I think there’s a huge question mark over the reliability of the Red Bulls. Yes the tyres may give an edge off the line, but they are going to last about 3 laps.
Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.
Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.
But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.
Putin has been humiliated here. He made all kinds of threats about reprisals and retaliation if there was an attack but Trump called his bluster and went ahead. The Russians claimed that they shot down missiles heading for other targets. Its laughable and shows their impotence. There will be no retaliation because Russia is too weak to make it count and the reprisals would be shattering.
What Trump has made clear, unlike Obama, is that he is not intimidated by Putin's threats and will proceed whether the UN is blocked by vetoes or not. It is of a piece with the response to Salisbury. The price to be paid for Putin's foreign adventurism, which was negligible in the case of Crimea, the Ukraine and MH17 when Obama was in charge, is increasing and Putin needs to think carefully about how much of this his weak economy can take.
In my view this justified the current raids on their own. As I said this morning I would have preferred that the raids were targeted on the personal assets of Assad than some "weapons research facility" that will prove to be a barn in the middle of nowhere where something might once have been stored. But the US was right to do this and we were right to stand with them, just as they stood with us.
Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.
Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.
But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.
He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.
The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.
Trump is getting a few air strikes of his own from within GOP this morning and his wee-wee problem has not gone away over the pee tapes.The action clearly suited Trump as a distraction but his problems at home have just got a lot worse,not better,as a result.His response is likely to be to full on WW3 as the ultimate destruction.He needs taking out.
You are delusional.
Put your hatred to one side and look at what was actually done
Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.
Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.
But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.
Putin has been humiliated here. He made all kinds of threats about reprisals and retaliation if there was an attack but Trump called his bluster and went ahead. The Russians claimed that they shot down missiles heading for other targets. Its laughable and shows their impotence. There will be no retaliation because Russia is too weak to make it count and the reprisals would be shattering.
What Trump has made clear, unlike Obama, is that he is not intimidated by Putin's threats and will proceed whether the UN is blocked by vetoes or not. It is of a piece with the response to Salisbury. The price to be paid for Putin's foreign adventurism, which was negligible in the case of Crimea, the Ukraine and MH17 when Obama was in charge, is increasing and Putin needs to think carefully about how much of this his weak economy can take.
In my view this justified the current raids on their own. As I said this morning I would have preferred that the raids were targeted on the personal assets of Assad than some "weapons research facility" that will prove to be a barn in the middle of nowhere where something might once have been stored. But the US was right to do this and we were right to stand with them, just as they stood with us.
Well, we'll have to wait and see what happens next. Not sure I agree that it was the right thing to do. Was there any legal basis for this attack? I ask out of genuine curiosity. I thought we saw ourselves as guardians of a law based international order. I do agree though, that we effectively had no choice in the matter. Particularly post Salisbury. May probably called it right in terms of our strategic interest.
Comments
What I do know is that doing nothing sends as clear a message as doing something. To argue for nothing is the counsel of despair.
Apparently a good chunk of Syria's planes are now sitting alongside Russian ones though.
As you are, guys.
The caption on that picture in the article is "Damascus sky lights up with service to air missile fire."
Oh dear, oh dear.
The maomentum fake new sites are still pushing all these conspiracy theories about how there is doubt Russia were involved.
Infowars and maomentum sites different cheeks of the same arse...would love to know where their funding comes from.
Morning Malc!
Hope you've got your bunker prepared...
I'd also point out I don't even support the strikes, nor did I support Iraq, so I am technically on Corbyn's side on this one - I just think the legally questionable part is a nonsense in this instance, and that they should have the balls to say they think it is illegal if that is what they think.
If nothing else, how can he criticise May in full throated fashion for 'maybe' doing something illegal. 'How dare you do something that is possibly illegal?' 'So is it illegal or not?' 'Maybe' 'So maybe it is fine then?'
Honestly f you replace twitter with parliament there, that view I have no issue with. Should have is very different to must.
I guess the only way would be to make the strikes so broad and sweeping that it forces Russia to slink back from Syria, but civilian casualties in such a war would be devastatingly high. I'm not convinced that we have the stomach to wage such a war any more.
If last nights very limited actions means we can go another 12 months without children being gassed to death isn't that probably a good thing? Maybe?
Nevertheless, of course we are not going to deliberately target Russian collateral. We don’t have the stomach, and never have had the stomach for wanton and reckless escalation against a major power.
I'd also point out I don't even support the strikes, nor did I support Iraq, so I am technically on Corbyn's side on this one - I just think the legally questionable part is a nonsense in this instance, and that they should have the balls to say they think it is illegal if that is what they think.
If nothing else, how can he criticise May in full throated fashion for 'maybe' doing something illegal. 'How dare you do something that is possibly illegal?' 'So is it illegal or not?' 'Maybe' 'So maybe it is fine then?'
These are worrying times; the single thing which gives me most confidence that we are not making fools of ourselves is that the notoriously difficult and bloody-minded (about everything, but military affairs especially) French are with us. I am surprised that you, as a major francophile and euphile, don't feel the same. Is Macron any less wrong than May, if she is wrong?
You obviously know a lot more about the Salisbury attack than I do. I haven't heard how volatile the chemical in question is, and its actual chemical nature hasn't been released. But I would have thought for a targeted attack you'd want something that didn't persist? I recognised the decontaminant brand name on the footage. It was one suitable for dilution of a water soluble agent, and seems to have worked as nobody else has been affected since.
This action should send a clear message to Assad about the likely cost of future transgressions and it's worth it for that alone, irrespective of the actual damage caused.The West's inability to do everything should not mean we don't do anything.
What Assad did was bomb them so civilians hid in cellars, and then used gas that sank into the cellars to kill them.
Do you think that stopping the 2nd step might be a good idea?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
I find it very strange that the UK is prepared to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively (i.e. not just as a deterrent) yet gets all shirty about the use of chlorine in someone else's war.
Just remembered Corbyn thought it was legally questionable when we had drone strikes against terrorists.
Then we have crocodile tears that we are upset that women and children have died, it is pretty pathetic and phony in my opinion.
There are many other conflicts etc where despots are killing civilians , we only pick and choose where we intervene and it always is coincidental that where we make money we never seem to intervene.
I'm off to enjoy the first spring sunshine in a week.
CU later.
Dangerous places, chemical weapons plants. They can explode without warning.
Must be off , time to get the Begonias potted up before Grand national time.
Cameron's Grand Old Duke of York impression was entirely down to Dave himself.
Anyway, we are now bombing both* sides in a civil war. That must be a first.
*The main two. Other sides are also involved. However, our NATO allies in Turkey are bombing them.
However, they were colonial wars where both sides in addition to shooting at each other were also shooting at us. So I'm not sure they're exact parallels.
https://twitter.com/LASuiter/status/985047006438572034
Like Craig Murray, how did they ever their high profile roles.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/22/andrei-zheleznyakov-soviet-scientist-poisoned-novichok
He makes Jezza look like a believer. How the hell did he and Craig Murray get high profile roles representing the uk on the international stage.
On a lighter note:
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/981154556481622016
PB is going to the dogs if not the horses.
You ok with that?
Personally I would prefer the Russians and Syrians didn't target civilians - they are making an active choice.
As you know we have only responded because of a breach of the chemical weapons treaty.
There are no easy answers in this world - no matter what Corbyn gets gullible people to believe.
I know nothing of racing, so DYOR :-)
Usually it's the first horse past the winning post.
At the moment I'd probably lean towards Swinson as being the best option to get us noticed again - but I'm open persuasion if other candidates show they have what it takes.
The public are wise enough to realize that drawing a distinction between the chlorine bomb allegedly delivered by Assad and those delivered by any of the other combatants is splitting hairs. If he had the smart bombs the UK or US have I'm sure he wouldn't be using such primitive weapons.
After Iraq the public are less believing of the warlike instincts of our politicians and much less believing of our intelligence services.
Trump has the respect of almost no one so following him in this sort of endeavour wont be popular and anyone who listened to his speech at 2.30 this morning will be feeling nauseous. It was the worst leaders address I've heard
Picking a random number between 1 and 40 seems to be the way to go.
Which three in the 5.15 at Aintree?
Bottas at just about evs for a podium (2.06)
Williamses at 5 each to score a point.
No SC 2.1.
(All on Betfair)
https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/985116039078957057
One of those situations where I'd just sit it out if I didn't offer a tip every race. Considering Hamilton for the win, hedged.
It’s going to be a tactical race, possibly between 2 and 3 stops, but one stop might be possible for the top 4 on a counter strategy. Assuming that pit stops all finish with four wheels on a car and no mechanics heading to the hospital.
Total Recall has been mentioned.
And for the third chose either a name you like or the one with the longest odds.
Grargh. I'm back to wondering about Red Bull. Which reminds me, they start ultrasoft so may have an advantage off the line.
A message needed to be sent that Chemical Weapons cannot be tolerated. Whilst this won't change a huge amount on the ground, it's infinitely better than Corbyn's impotence.
But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.
The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
The refugee crisis places a responsibility on all countries and I the government will now increase its commitment to take additional refugees.
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-43710303
Betting PostF1: not confident but the best of a bad bunch seems to be Hamilton to win, 5.3, hedged at evens:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/china-pre-race-2018.html
What Trump has made clear, unlike Obama, is that he is not intimidated by Putin's threats and will proceed whether the UN is blocked by vetoes or not. It is of a piece with the response to Salisbury. The price to be paid for Putin's foreign adventurism, which was negligible in the case of Crimea, the Ukraine and MH17 when Obama was in charge, is increasing and Putin needs to think carefully about how much of this his weak economy can take.
In my view this justified the current raids on their own. As I said this morning I would have preferred that the raids were targeted on the personal assets of Assad than some "weapons research facility" that will prove to be a barn in the middle of nowhere where something might once have been stored. But the US was right to do this and we were right to stand with them, just as they stood with us.
Put your hatred to one side and look at what was actually done
Not sure I agree that it was the right thing to do. Was there any legal basis for this attack? I ask out of genuine curiosity. I thought we saw ourselves as guardians of a law based international order.
I do agree though, that we effectively had no choice in the matter. Particularly post Salisbury. May probably called it right in terms of our strategic interest.