Quote: Gordon Bennett @ August 28 2013, 11:43 AM BSTThere was/is an article about Steve Coogan in my local paper today:
http://bazonline.ch/kultur/kino/Ich-mag-es-nicht-von-Kopfnickern-umgeben-zu-sein/story/14826780
Interesting. My mind is still on Syria. In the last hour I have been told that Tony Blair is in favour of military action. Consequently I am now vehemently against.
A war with Syria would be like nothing that's gone on before.
Syria has a massive army, hardened by wars with Israel, not to mention Iranian and Hezbollahs allies in the 1000s.
Unlike Sadam's forces these aren't poorly trained conscripts waiting to flee. They are dedicated skilled troops with huge experience in using technology to fight a 21st century guerilla war.
Andthat's before you take into account neither China, North Korea and certainly not Russia have the least enthusiasim about losing their one solid ally in the Mid East. Russia could with one container ship equip the Syrians to blow up Western tanks and shoot down their aircraft.
Andthat's before you mention Iran, who are not keen to lose their only other serious ally in the region.
I think trade, sanctions and diplomacy if applied with rigor and involving the Arab world could make a diference.
Quote: sootyj @ August 28 2013, 12:30 PM BSTA war with Syria would be like nothing that's gone on before.
Syria has a massive army, hardened by wars with Israel, not to mention Iranian and Hezbollahs allies in the 1000s.
Unlike Sadam's forces these aren't poorly trained conscripts waiting to flee. They are dedicated skilled troops with huge experience in using technology to fight a 21st century guerilla war.Andthat's before you take into account neither China, North Korea and certainly not Russia have the least enthusiasim about losing their one solid ally in the Mid East. Russia could with one container ship equip the Syrians to blow up Western tanks and shoot down their aircraft.
Andthat's before you mention Iran, who are not keen to lose their only other serious ally in the region.
I think trade, sanctions and diplomacy if applied with rigor and involving the Arab world could make a diference.
Good points - but the Government will be considering more important matters, ie what on earth can produce a Coalition victory in the 2015 election?
Another Falklands War, War with Spain on Gibralter, War with the Disabled, War with the EU, War with Alex Salmond, War with the Unemployed or merely War with Dear Old Syria? For it ain't gonna be a War with the Bankers, that's for sure.
Meanwhile, following his private audience with the Pope, Tony could appear to believe he has become the Book of Revelation. Why just settle for a really special throne in the afterlife when you can be the geezer who finished the world off too?
According to the opinion polls, it is the over-65s who are most against a Syrian War. 65 is the new 40. 45 is the new 20. I firmly believe that no one under the age of 75 should be running this country.
Oh well, we were always going to blow ourselves up eventually. I'm off to bed until this is all over.
Quote: Jennie @ August 28 2013, 1:07 PM BSTOh well, we were always going to blow ourselves up eventually. I'm off to bed until this is all over.
We?
Quote: Horseradish @ August 28 2013, 1:11 PM BSTWe?
We as in the human race.
Quote: Jennie @ August 28 2013, 1:19 PM BSTWe as in the human race.
Oh yes I see. Of course. I'm just not sure that I feel "the great and the good" are in quite the same category. Of course, they always seem very reasonable in conversation. That's what I found anyway.
When the psychotic war criminal Tony Blair took this country to war in Iraq based on LIES LIES LIES, the Lib Dems were dead against it
And ever since bragged about how only they were against it
Well were about to do the same in Syria (we aren't bothering to wait for any concrete evidence before bombing a country andthat's probably because there isn't any ...) - so why isn't Clegg speaking out against this illegal war?
Cos him and his party are enjoying a bit of power this time and are clearly a bunch of f**king hypocritical bastards
Blair is scum but it's clear now, regardless of the party in power , they will do whatever the yanks order us to do
Even if it meant one day bringing the world to the brink of a third world war against Russia/China in the process
Quote: lofthouse @ August 28 2013, 6:32 PM BSTWhen the psychotic war criminal Tony Blair took this country to war in Iraq based on LIES LIES LIES, the Lib Dems were dead against it
And ever since bragged about how only they were against it
Well were about to do the same in Syria (we aren't bothering to wait for any concrete evidence before bombing a country andthat's probably because there isn't any ...) - so why isn't Clegg speaking out against this illegal war?
Cos him and his party are enjoying a bit of power this time and are clearly a bunch of f**king hypocritical bastards
Blair is scum but it's clear now, regardless of the party in power , they will do whatever the yanks order us to do
Even if it meant one day bringing the world to the brink of a third world war against Russia/China in the process
People forget after the 1991 Gulf War a large number of odd pipes were found stacked up in a remote corner of Iraq.
Experts puzzled over them until someone took a lot at some of Prof Gerald Bull's old designs.
They were the parts for a gun to put large objects into low earth orbit. Sadam it turns out was a year or so away from having nuclear weapons. He already had some awesomely scary bio weapons.
The west new vaguely about these plans, under other circumstances they may have found out when people start dying in New york or London.
It kind of explains that when the evidence lent towards a secret weapons program Blair and Bush took a gamble.
The wrong one, but understandable/
Quote: lofthouse @ August 28 2013, 6:32 PM BSTWhen the psychotic war criminal Tony Blair took this country to war in Iraq based on LIES LIES LIES, the Lib Dems were dead against it
And ever since bragged about how only they were against it
Well were about to do the same in Syria (we aren't bothering to wait for any concrete evidence before bombing a country andthat's probably because there isn't any ...) - so why isn't Clegg speaking out against this illegal war?
Cos him and his party are enjoying a bit of power this time and are clearly a bunch of f**king hypocritical bastards
Blair is scum but it's clear now, regardless of the party in power , they will do whatever the yanks order us to do
Even if it meant one day bringing the world to the brink of a third world war against Russia/China in the process
I mentioned a few weeks ago that Hague might just be improving in his role. Now we know he isn't. Far worse, Cameron really isn't fit for purpose. As news emerges that Russia would almost certainly support action if Assad's use of chemical weapons is proven, very likely with Chinese support, we might ask why our esteemed PM rushed towards the idea of immediacy like the proverbial bull in a china shop. He appears to have learnt absolutely nothing from the Iraq experience about which he himself ironically was hesitant.
His Blair style absence of any regard for UN is shocking in its arrogance and its lack of diplomatic nous. He got it wrong on international relations, wrong on assumptions about backing from the Opposition and wrong in terms of public opinion. There wasn't anything right about it. Of course, he isn't entirely on his own in these things. One has to seriously wonder about the advice being given by the Foreign Office. Clegg as usual was the kowtowing clone, merely requiring "a UN moment". How magnanimous! And even Miliband was useless. He fluttered in the breeze far longer than was necessary but then that is one of his key traits.
With only 9% of US citizens supporting military action, and 25% of the British, maybe it is time for the US and particularly the UK to ditch the gross grandiosity. Let the Russians and Chinese do any paying. It sure would be a first and, as we keep being told, our countries are broke. It is surprising they are afloat at all.
Syria has for years been the USSR's regional enforcer, far, far more than buffoonish Libya was.
The idea that the US will conclusively prove Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons is ridiculous.
It will turn out to be one rogue officer acting on his own initative.
The current idea that Tony Blair smuggled a sarin warhead into the country up his bum through 3 nations is daft.
Syria has the worlds third largest chemical arsenal, if the rebels did fake an attack. They could have raided a depot, or got a defecting officer to do it for them far more easily.
Quote: Horseradish @ August 29 2013, 6:55 AM BSTThe Blair style absence of any regard for UN is shocking in its arrogance and its lack of diplomatic nous.
The UN was a pushed to the side irrelevancy during the coldwar, doing little more than patrolling the aftermath of USSR and US's increasingly bloody spats.
It had a chance to make a new name for it's self during the Yugoslav wars in peaces keeping and utterly, totally blew it. With Serbian militia using stolen UN uniforms to round up and massacre civilians. It managed to fail even more spectacularly in Rwanda.
If Cameron, Bush, Blair, all that crew ignore the UN it's because in peacekeeping it's a risible joke. This is an organisation that's had Libya heading up it's secruity council. Not to mention it's peacekeepers actually managing to give the Haitians TB for the first time in a century.
Quote: sootyj @ August 29 2013, 7:06 AM BSTSyria has for years been the USSR's regional enforcer, far, far more than buffoonish Libya was.
The idea that the US will conclusively prove Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons is ridiculous.
It will turn out to be one rogue officer acting on his own initative.
The current idea that Tony Blair smuggled a sarin warhead into the country up his bum through 3 nations is daft.
Syria has the worlds third largest chemical arsenal, if the rebels did fake an attack. They could have raided a depot, or got a defecting officer to do it for them far more easily.The UN was a pushed to the side irrelevancy during the coldwar, doing little more than patrolling the aftermath of USSR and US's increasingly bloody spats.
It had a chance to make a new name for it's self during the Yugoslav wars in peaces keeping and utterly, totally blew it. With Serbian militia using stolen UN uniforms to round up and massacre civilians. It managed to fail even more spectacularly in Rwanda.If Cameron, Bush, Blair, all that crew ignore the UN it's because in peacekeeping it's a risible joke. This is an organisation that's had Libya heading up it's secruity council. Not to mention it's peacekeepers actually managing to give the Haitians TB for the first time in a century.
Very considered comments but normally paymasters are responsible for good or bad organisation and we know who is mainly paying for UN. I believe in UN a good deal more than I believe in, say, EU but I think we have to stick with both and consistently try to improve them. When anyone points out their failings - and they are almost limitless - I tend to ask for evidence on how national governments have proven greater competence. It doesn't exist - at least not in most of my lifetime. Deep down, everyone knows that is true.
Well NATO as an alternative body effectively stopped the Yugoslav wars and turned around the Kosovo conflict. Not to mention Gulf War 1 was a NATO operation in all but name.
The UN suffers from the same crippling problem as the IOC and the Eurovision song contest. It judges each country as an integral and equally valid unit.
Which means once you're in, you're in/
The EU is a rich countries club that existis to make it's self more rich and is a poor example of anything.
Quote: sootyj @ August 29 2013, 7:18 AM BSTWell NATO as an alternative body effectively stopped the Yugoslav wars and turned around the Kosovo conflict. Not to mention Gulf War 1 was a NATO operation in all but name.
The UN suffers from the same crippling problem as the IOC and the Eurovision song contest. It judges each country as an integral and equally valid unit.
Which means once you're in, you're in/
The EU is a rich countries club that existis to make it's self more rich and is a poor example of anything.
Without the EU - I'm not a big fan but rather not far off neutral - those countries would exist individually to make themselves more rich. There's very little difference in motive. I thought the problem with Eurovision was in the cliques which award points irrespective of merit. That's not quite the same as you describe.
Oh no I'm fan of the EU when they're not straightening our bananas.
Just they're not the same thing as the UN at all.