Thank you (and Blackforest) I did read that, I haven't read the Independent since it was taken over by the Mirror (oh for days of Sarah Hogg). It is, as you say an insightful read. Channel four news have been pushing the sectarian angle as well, a view point that I think holds water. He never mentioned our 'allies' the Saudis in that report, preferring instead to mention the Sunni's. I do so want the world to wake up to the (I was going to say duplicitous) multiplicitous nature of their involvement in all of this and more.
As for Russia cutting off the gas, it's worth knowing that they need the income from that as much as we need the gas, so while a demonstration may take place I'm not sure they could afford to close it down for long. The exact same language was used by the Russians (well the exact translation, I don't speak Russian) when they cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine.
They could push up the price though ? What could we do about it. Nothing.
Not saying that the article is wrong, who knows, but I have serious doubts about the intentions of that website in offering a balanced view. Looks just like a vehicle for anti American views to me.
Just like we shouldnt expect a balanced view from any side then I guess . Just thought it was good to read something other than what ours or the politicians in America are telling us.
Not saying that the article is wrong, who knows, but I have serious doubts about the intentions of that website in offering a balanced view. Looks just like a vehicle for anti American views to me.
Just like we shouldnt expect a balanced view from any side then I guess . Just thought it was good to read something other than what ours or the politicians in America are telling us.
Agree although I was also referring to the tone and selection of other articles on that site.
John Kerry, the US Secretary of State (Foreign secretary) is talking far too tough. I hope that he is not putting too many words in Obamas' mouth. Kerry is a failed democratic party Presidential candidate (2004). I hope that he isn't going to use a tough stance against Syria as a stepping stone to his being selected as the next democratic presidential candidate.
There is more chance of Kerry Katona running for President in 2016 than John Kerry.
He is a fine man but about as charismatic as Alan Curbishley.
Next Democratic nominee is either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.
If anyone thinks that there is any possibility of a United Arab Uma or even a simpler agreement between the Islamic States as mentioned in Loco's very interesting post above then the no fly zone is needed right now to stop those flying pigs.
Shooters being a muslim myself, I had to say the shahada for my lady's hand in marriage, I hope if the caliphate returns we wouldn't see pig's flying round my flat roof. I'd be most upset.
Operation Pig you know virtually nothing about Islam. Of all the monotheistic religions it is inherently accepting and forgiving. Sharia law is interprative via the wisdom of qadis. Like all religions, it has mentalists promoting it. Of all the religions Christianity seems to do the biggest fuckups in the Middle East.
As for Assad it seems peculiar for him to use chemical weapons now. But he unlike his father, does not control the military, his position is reliant on them. Tactical decisions can and often are taken by quite lowly military officers: Princip and the Serbian intelligence services who setup the assasination lacked a strategic accuity, something their political masters at least were aware of. If there was an established chemical weapon engagement protocol, I doubt Assad held the key or the choice of when to enact the delivery. The Assad regime does not have enough troops to control all rebel areas. Terror is a weapon that logically can be argued is effective in quelling support for opposition forces.
Do I believe Assad forces did this? No. But do I believe it was possible to be government forces? Yes.
How do you know I don't know anything about Islam? I've spent a lot of time in Muslim countries including Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran and parts of NWP in Pakistan (before anyone asks I won't answer as to why I've been there)
I don't knock anyone's faith, I know plenty of Muslims men and women that are great people and they respect that I don't share their opinion on Islam, and it's just that... my opinion, you only have to look around the world and open your eyes to see where most of the problems are, even Muslim brothers are fighting each other! yet you like many many others still claim it's the religion of peace and harmony?
My opinion is mine and I stand by it, deal with it and people like me.
We'll have a second vote and will be involved in two weeks.
Cameron appeared to rule out any British military involvement.
The Americans have now postponed an attack on Syria, Obama wants Congress's approval first and they don't reconvene until Sept 9th. The House Speaker, John Boehner, is a right-wing Republican and will do just about anything to embarrass Obama has said that there will be no early recall.
Presumably this gives him time to work on Russia and China.
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
The timing of the vote was as has been said was all wrong. The intention was to stand beside the US from the earliest opportunity. The big mistake the Americans and Hague and Cameron have made is to rush things. If I was an MP voting on such an important subject, I would want all the information there was on the subject - absolutely made sense to wait for weapons inspectors report.
Hague has been too impatient all along. His stance and others like him has actually done more harm than good. He has his view and has gone about things like a spoilt child.
Another interesting fact is that now the Americans have slowed things down, Syria hasn't reported this as a victory as most countries like them would. I think part of the reason is a limited attack would inadvertantly achieve two things. Firstly it would galvanise the Arab world to support Syria and secondly it would make an attack on Isreal more likely and that is the powder keg the Americans need to think about!
We (and the world) have a lot to be grateful to Ed Milliband for and before I am accused of being party political, we must admire the Tory rebel's role in this. I believe 2 cabinet Ministers abstained too. Much harder for them to do this than Milliband and I am grateful.
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
We (and the world) have a lot to be grateful to Ed Milliband for and before I am accused of being party political, we must admire the Tory rebel's role in this. I believe 2 cabinet Ministers abstained too. Much harder for them to do this than Milliband and I am grateful.
Neither the government motion or the labour amendment left military intervention off the table yet that had become Britains position after the vote. Complete balls up on all accounts. I think the two ministers you refer to claim they didn't hear the division bell so not really an honourable abstention (I might be talking about different ministers.)
George Galloway made a good point about Assad being "bad enough or mad enough" with U.N.weapons inspectors in Syria to launch an attack on the rebels. If it was proved that the rebels attacked their own people to draw America into the conflict, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and William Hauge would have to resign and the government would face a vote of no confidence.
I think the two ministers you refer to claim they didn't hear the division bell so not really an honourable abstention (I might be talking about different ministers.)
I'd agree - they can claim plausible deniability by claiming that they didn't hear the division bell, but these are two MPs who knew when the bell would go off (it would be on their order papers) and their excuse that they didn't hear it is of the "dog ate my homework" variety. Being on the payroll as ministers they couldn't openly join the rebels, this was the next available option.
So are we to assume that as Uncle Sam seems a little less Gung Ho than a few days ago that they have conflicting information on the perpetrators of the gas attack? Israel say it was Assad have the UN reported it was the rebels?
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
Or at least have proof first before attacking
24 hours earlier Kerry was adamant that they have incontrovertible proof. Not a scintilla of doubt for the Obama Administration. Even if Obama can enlist enough Republicans to give him political cover on 9 Sept, by the time any strike occurs, they will be less likely to be hitting the intended targets and more likely to be killing civilians who happen to be (or are placed by Assad) in the way. Moreover, now that Netanyahu knows he can't trust Obama to stop the Iranians from completing a nuclear missile capability (on the contrary, they're likely to be emboldened to do so by this prevarication), you'd have to assume Israel will likely launch a pre-emptive strike itself against Iran.
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
Or at least have proof first before attacking
24 hours earlier Kerry was adamant that they have incontrovertible proof. Not a scintilla of doubt for the Obama Administration. Even if Obama can enlist enough Republicans to give him political cover on 9 Sept, by the time any strike occurs, they will be less likely to be hitting the intended targets and more likely to be killing civilians who happen to be (or are placed by Assad) in the way. Moreover, now that Netanyahu knows he can't trust Obama to stop the Iranians from completing a nuclear missile capability (on the contrary, they're likely to be emboldened to do so by this prevarication), you'd have to assume Israel will likely launch a pre-emptive strike itself against Iran.
I am sorry to say that I have to wholeheartedly agree with this. Worrying.
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
Or at least have proof first before attacking
24 hours earlier Kerry was adamant that they have incontrovertible proof. Not a scintilla of doubt for the Obama Administration. Even if Obama can enlist enough Republicans to give him political cover on 9 Sept, by the time any strike occurs, they will be less likely to be hitting the intended targets and more likely to be killing civilians who happen to be (or are placed by Assad) in the way. Moreover, now that Netanyahu knows he can't trust Obama to stop the Iranians from completing a nuclear missile capability (on the contrary, they're likely to be emboldened to do so by this prevarication), you'd have to assume Israel will likely launch a pre-emptive strike itself against Iran.
These kind of nuances prove how incredibly complex international relations are. The vast majority of "joe public" in the UK or the US will most likely not understand the ramifications of the action their government decide is necessary. It's far from simple. It is the duty of our politicians to explain the nuances and convince us that action is (or is not) necessary.
This is surely far too serious for political points-scoring - all of our politicians should debate this openly and not be seeking to damage one-another with a view to who wins the next general election.
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
Or at least have proof first before attacking
24 hours earlier Kerry was adamant that they have incontrovertible proof. Not a scintilla of doubt for the Obama Administration. Even if Obama can enlist enough Republicans to give him political cover on 9 Sept, by the time any strike occurs, they will be less likely to be hitting the intended targets and more likely to be killing civilians who happen to be (or are placed by Assad) in the way. Moreover, now that Netanyahu knows he can't trust Obama to stop the Iranians from completing a nuclear missile capability (on the contrary, they're likely to be emboldened to do so by this prevarication), you'd have to assume Israel will likely launch a pre-emptive strike itself against Iran.
I am sorry to say that I have to wholeheartedly agree with this. Worrying.
Iran recently had a change of government and while the new men are not exactly rational when it comes to Israel and the USA, they are not quite as suicidal/homicidal as the last lot.
Obama is now taking his decision to congress, again this is a mistake in my opinion. The US should be talking to the Syrians government trying to persuade them not to use such weapons first, the old fashioned carrot and stick approach can sometimes pull off surprising results. If that gets nowhere perhaps (PERHAPS) then is the time to decide on military action and take it to congress, if congress decides against it now, no stick is available for diplomacy, where are we then? Obama will look weak and foolish.
I don't know who is advising the president but, I really think he needs someone else's council at this most important time. Why not send a delegation to Syria, what harm can it do to start a dialog? All I can see at the moment is us and the US thrashing around bearing our teeth, snarling and then skulking off with our tails between our legs making us look ridiculous. Protection of innocent lives and stopping the spread of this conflict should be our primary goals, what was left behind in Iraq was important but we failed in that, what is left behind now is of vital importance.
Obama is now taking his decision to congress, again this is a mistake in my opinion.
It's a good delaying/buying time tactic. He somewhat hampered himself with his talk of "redlines" and promises of action if Assad used chemical weapons so when it appeared that he did he had to do something. But internationally events haven't helped him. At the moment he needs, as Bush did, to put together an international coalition to use as a lever in negotiations with Putin and the UN. Britain is out, seemingly for good, the French, despite Kerry's buttering up attempt last week are now nervous about a military intervention without a mandate of some kind from the UN and the Germans have also said that they wont be getting involved either, although that's no real shock. Although the Germans are not UNSC members they are a large and influential nation but for understandable reasons they don't like getting involved in military conflicts. That leaves Russia and China of the other UNSC members and they are in Russia's case supporting Syria and in China's case somewhat ambivalent. Clearly Obama has some hard negotiating to do, particularly with Putin and maybe also other UN members and because Congress doesn't sit again until Sept 9th he has bought himself some time before they have their say.
Obama as CinC doesn't need Congressional approval to order an attack, there have been plenty of occasions where the president has ordered military action without Congressional approval/a Congressional debate, although only the latter can actually declare war, but he will need the latter to stump up the cash.
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
Or at least have proof first before attacking
24 hours earlier Kerry was adamant that they have incontrovertible proof. Not a scintilla of doubt for the Obama Administration. Even if Obama can enlist enough Republicans to give him political cover on 9 Sept, by the time any strike occurs, they will be less likely to be hitting the intended targets and more likely to be killing civilians who happen to be (or are placed by Assad) in the way. Moreover, now that Netanyahu knows he can't trust Obama to stop the Iranians from completing a nuclear missile capability (on the contrary, they're likely to be emboldened to do so by this prevarication), you'd have to assume Israel will likely launch a pre-emptive strike itself against Iran.
These kind of nuances prove how incredibly complex international relations are. The vast majority of "joe public" in the UK or the US will most likely not understand the ramifications of the action their government decide is necessary. It's far from simple. It is the duty of our politicians to explain the nuances and convince us that action is (or is not) necessary.
This is surely far too serious for political points-scoring - all of our politicians should debate this openly and not be seeking to damage one-another with a view to who wins the next general election.
I watched the last hour of the debate and was impressed and surprised by the non -partisan contributions by M.P.'s. The vast majority were opposed to our involvement with military action on Syria, but all expressed revulsion with the use of chemical weapons.
GOLDEN RULE: Don't make threats you're not prepared to act upon. Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
Or at least have proof first before attacking
24 hours earlier Kerry was adamant that they have incontrovertible proof. Not a scintilla of doubt for the Obama Administration. Even if Obama can enlist enough Republicans to give him political cover on 9 Sept, by the time any strike occurs, they will be less likely to be hitting the intended targets and more likely to be killing civilians who happen to be (or are placed by Assad) in the way. Moreover, now that Netanyahu knows he can't trust Obama to stop the Iranians from completing a nuclear missile capability (on the contrary, they're likely to be emboldened to do so by this prevarication), you'd have to assume Israel will likely launch a pre-emptive strike itself against Iran.
These kind of nuances prove how incredibly complex international relations are. The vast majority of "joe public" in the UK or the US will most likely not understand the ramifications of the action their government decide is necessary. It's far from simple. It is the duty of our politicians to explain the nuances and convince us that action is (or is not) necessary.
This is surely far too serious for political points-scoring - all of our politicians should debate this openly and not be seeking to damage one-another with a view to who wins the next general election.
I watched the last hour of the debate and was impressed and surprised by the non -partisan contributions by M.P.'s. The vast majority were opposed to our involvement with military action on Syria, but all expressed revulsion with the use of chemical weapons.
I agree, but since the debate there has been school playground style name-calling.
Comments
Just like we shouldnt expect a balanced view from any side then I guess
He is a fine man but about as charismatic as Alan Curbishley.
Next Democratic nominee is either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.
The Americans - both Democratic and Republican - loathe Fisk because he calls them out on their foreign policy BS in the Middle East.
Cut his journalism teeth in Belfast and is the top man on the Middle East.
I don't knock anyone's faith, I know plenty of Muslims men and women that are great people and they respect that I don't share their opinion on Islam, and it's just that... my opinion, you only have to look around the world and open your eyes to see where most of the problems are, even Muslim brothers are fighting each other! yet you like many many others still claim it's the religion of peace and harmony?
My opinion is mine and I stand by it, deal with it and people like me.
The Americans have now postponed an attack on Syria, Obama wants Congress's approval first and they don't reconvene until Sept 9th. The House Speaker, John Boehner, is a right-wing Republican and will do just about anything to embarrass Obama has said that there will be no early recall.
Presumably this gives him time to work on Russia and China.
Net result of Obama's prevarication: The Iranian's will press on with nuclear armament certain that the US does not have the stomach to prevent them.
Hague has been too impatient all along. His stance and others like him has actually done more harm than good. He has his view and has gone about things like a spoilt child.
Another interesting fact is that now the Americans have slowed things down, Syria hasn't reported this as a victory as most countries like them would. I think part of the reason is a limited attack would inadvertantly achieve two things. Firstly it would galvanise the Arab world to support Syria and secondly it would make an attack on Isreal more likely and that is the powder keg the Americans need to think about!
We (and the world) have a lot to be grateful to Ed Milliband for and before I am accused of being party political, we must admire the Tory rebel's role in this. I believe 2 cabinet Ministers abstained too. Much harder for them to do this than Milliband and I am grateful.
If it was proved that the rebels attacked their own people to draw America into the conflict, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and William Hauge would have to resign and the government would face a vote of no confidence.
I'd agree - they can claim plausible deniability by claiming that they didn't hear the division bell, but these are two MPs who knew when the bell would go off (it would be on their order papers) and their excuse that they didn't hear it is of the "dog ate my homework" variety. Being on the payroll as ministers they couldn't openly join the rebels, this was the next available option.
Even if Obama can enlist enough Republicans to give him political cover on 9 Sept, by the time any strike occurs, they will be less likely to be hitting the intended targets and more likely to be killing civilians who happen to be (or are placed by Assad) in the way.
Moreover, now that Netanyahu knows he can't trust Obama to stop the Iranians from completing a nuclear missile capability (on the contrary, they're likely to be emboldened to do so by this prevarication), you'd have to assume Israel will likely launch a pre-emptive strike itself against Iran.
I am sorry to say that I have to wholeheartedly agree with this. Worrying.
This is surely far too serious for political points-scoring - all of our politicians should debate this openly and not be seeking to damage one-another with a view to who wins the next general election.
I don't know who is advising the president but, I really think he needs someone else's council at this most important time. Why not send a delegation to Syria, what harm can it do to start a dialog? All I can see at the moment is us and the US thrashing around bearing our teeth, snarling and then skulking off with our tails between our legs making us look ridiculous. Protection of innocent lives and stopping the spread of this conflict should be our primary goals, what was left behind in Iraq was important but we failed in that, what is left behind now is of vital importance.
It's a good delaying/buying time tactic. He somewhat hampered himself with his talk of "redlines" and promises of action if Assad used chemical weapons so when it appeared that he did he had to do something. But internationally events haven't helped him. At the moment he needs, as Bush did, to put together an international coalition to use as a lever in negotiations with Putin and the UN. Britain is out, seemingly for good, the French, despite Kerry's buttering up attempt last week are now nervous about a military intervention without a mandate of some kind from the UN and the Germans have also said that they wont be getting involved either, although that's no real shock. Although the Germans are not UNSC members they are a large and influential nation but for understandable reasons they don't like getting involved in military conflicts. That leaves Russia and China of the other UNSC members and they are in Russia's case supporting Syria and in China's case somewhat ambivalent. Clearly Obama has some hard negotiating to do, particularly with Putin and maybe also other UN members and because Congress doesn't sit again until Sept 9th he has bought himself some time before they have their say.
Obama as CinC doesn't need Congressional approval to order an attack, there have been plenty of occasions where the president has ordered military action without Congressional approval/a Congressional debate, although only the latter can actually declare war, but he will need the latter to stump up the cash.