Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

DYOH and evaluate it for yourself.

I have open a bottle of wine.

8-)

Obama post 28533 above

I suspect the bottle wasnt the first.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syrian-air-strikes-obama-congress

re: #28542

How many soldiers on the ground?

Todays mail -

Now Ed says we've got to help Syrians,

A slippery hypocrite no one can trust

For Ed Miliband this week it was not about peace. It was not about parliamentary sovereignty, the national interest , chemical-warfare treaties or our (possibly now knackered ) 'special relationship with Washington.
It was certainly not about those children whose suffocated bodies were seen wrapped in white burial shrouds , after the Damascus suburbs gas attacks, murdered innocents ? V. low on the Miliband priority list. For the labour leader this week it was , as ever, about just one thing :me, me, me.

It was completely stupid to vote down the motion. The motion even said that there would be no action without a further vote.

And you believe what comes out of Cameroons mouth?

I don't always believe what comes out of either leaders mouths . The news to me does the labour party no more favours than the conservatives. Certain posters tend to keep running out the Cons when in fact the headlines are not a lot better for Labour.

MPs have privately begun to voice concerns that their leader made a catastrophic mistake by engineering the defeat of the Government’s motion in the House of Commons on Thursday night.

Meanwhile senior figures inside the Government accused the Labour leader of “stark raving hypocrisy”, “dishonourable behaviour” and “putting his party before the national interest”.

Ministerial aides said that Mr Miliband consistently gave the impression of a series of days that he would back a “consensual” approach with the Government, only to suddenly change his mind.

Labour politicians have also acknowledged that Mr Miliband’s strategy faces being undermined by every new atrocity committed by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

One MP, who declined to be named publicly, said he began to regret his decision to vote against military action within minutes of stepping out of the Division Lobby – because television screens began to show new footage of suffering Syrian innocents.

Related Articles
Miliband accused of 'playing politics' over refusal to back PM
29 Aug 2013
Miliband: Syria 'evidence should precede decision'
29 Aug 2013
Stumbling Miliband has a Westland moment
29 Aug 2013
Damascus waits for its missiles
31 Aug 2013

A former Labour foreign minister said Mr Miliband must bear part of the responsibility for the failure to secure agreement on how Britain should respond to the crisis. Meg Munn, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, said: “I think both leaders bear a responsibility for getting us into this position.

“I’m in favour of us taking action but I recognise that colleagues wanted more information. More does need to be done in relation to Syria and we’re now in the wrong position.”

Miss Munn, who served as a junior minister in the Foreign Office from 2007-08 and previously as minister for equality, added: “The whole situation is very regrettable.”

Another Labour MP said that, while his main concern was the plight of innocent people in Syria, he was also worried that last Thursday’s vote in the House of Commons – which the Government lost by 285 votes to 272 – would have damaging implications for Britain’s international standing.

Mike Gapes, MP for Ilford South, said: “I’m getting the impression that the country has become pretty neo-isolationist. That is not, in my view, how our country should be.

“However, I don’t believe the Obama administration’s approach is going to work.

“I’m very pessimistic about the whole situation. The whole way that politics has handled it is not good. I’m not criticising Ed Miliband; I’m criticising the whole political process.”

Privately, though, some Labour MPs have been more critical. While some on the Opposition benches were elated – and even boorish – at the victory they had secured on Thursday evening, some quickly began to see it differently.

After they had left the Chamber, some of the more reflective Labour politicians quickly found their consciences being pricked when, as if on cue, television images of an apparent firebomb attack on children and adults in a Syrian town near Aleppo began to appear on television screens inside the Palace of Westminster.

“Just as we came out of the Chamber the news of that napalm attack was running on the TV news, which looked like it could have only come from the regime,” said one Labour backbencher.

“Horrific pictures, absolutely horrific. You’d help but wonder what on earth we had just done.”

Another Labour MP admitted that every atrocity to emerge from Syria would now give rise to a pang of doubt.

“We will all have this on our consciences,” he said. “It may have been the right decision, but every time I see footage of another Syrian atrocity I will wonder.”

Even Labour backbenchers who are normally supportive of Mr Miliband said the party political approach adopted by their leadership had left them feeling ashamed.

They admitted the catcalling and points-scoring which developed in the House of Commons over a vote of such monumental, life-and-death importance had been highly inappropriate.

“There were colleagues grinning, clapping, celebrating,” said one Miliband loyalist.

“They seemed to think it was some sort of victory. That seemed appalling.

“The next day members of all parties were running around saying this was great day for Parliament. It seems absurd – all we were being asked to do was condemn an atrocity.”

Last night senior figures in the Coalition said that Mr Miliband gave the impression at a series of meetings and phone calls on Tuesday and Wednesday that he would back the Government’s motion.

In two phone calls on at around 8pm and 10pm on Tuesday night Mr Miliband calmly suggested that more information would from the United Nations would be “helpful” but he at no point said that he would vote against the Government’s motion.

The next afternoon at 3pm at a Downing Street meeting with Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary and Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband still gave no clue that he would abandon the “consensual” approach he had taken with the Coalition. Onlookers commented that his “posture” and demeanour seemed supportive.

When the Labour leader left Downing Street, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg were convinced the Opposition would largely back the Government’s motion.

“That was our biggest mistake – to trust Ed Miliband not to play party politics with dead children,” said one senior Government source. “We were genuinely astonished – shocked. The only thing we can think of is that the Shadow Cabinet told him to u-turn and he did.”

Labour disputes this account of the Downing Street meeting. They say Mr Miliband had made no final agreement to back the motion. A Labour source said: “We were asked to a meeting. We attended and we listened to what was said. That was the right and proper thing to do.”

When pressed why Mr Miliband gave no initial signal that he might not back the motion, the source added: “If someone hands you a piece of paper at the end of a meeting with a lot of words on it the proper thing to do is to read it and consult with your party.”

At 4.30pm Mr Miliband chaired a 15-minute conference call of the Shadow Cabinet, where Labour’s front-bench team unanimously agreed not to back the Government motion.

A Labour spokesman said that the call was “business like”, but one party insider admits that senior members of the Shadow Cabinet had been alarmed by how little public support there had been for an attack on Syria.

At 5:15pm, the Labour leader called the Prime Minister back to say that he and his party would not support the Government’s motion. A furious exchange ensued between the two men.

“It was stark raving hypocrisy,” said a senior Government source. “Miliband was putting his party before the national interest. It was thoroughly dishonourable behaviour.”

A few minutes later the Leader of the Opposition posted a message on Twitter announcing Labour’s position.

Mr Miliband’s comments on Friday has only poured petrol on the row between Downing Street and the Shadow Cabinet. The Labour leader urged the Government not “turn its back” on the Syrian people.

One senior Liberal Democrat described there is now “sheer, unadulterated fury” flowing from their Conservatives to their Labour opposite numbers.

“I’d say we were more disappointed than furious,” the Lib Dem added. “Should we be surprised that Labour would seek to play politics with a situation like this – isn’t that what Oppositions do?

“The invasion of Iraq cast a long shadow over this whole affair. The Labour Party must entirely take the blame for the fact that the public no longer trust politicians to take decisions about when we should send our armed forces into battle.”

You cant believe daylight out of any of them, but throwing another war for vanity's sake is a stretch too far.

It wasn't going to be a war.It was a limited strike.

The last paragraph of the above article sums it up perfectly, Cheers Labour!

MPs have privately begun to voice concerns that their leader made a catastrophic mistake by engineering the defeat of the Government’s motion in the House of Commons on Thursday night. That's the sentence that hits home with me Chris.

A "limited strike" to achieve what?

I hope who ever carried out this chemical killing is in hiding in a deep bunker with his head down as I can bet you intelligence is being sought and one of the missiles is for him. :-))

Aye DC, if that slime of a human being can stab his own brother in the back.

Mind you, I could mine sometimes. :-))

The UK’s intelligence-gathering assets based in the Mediterranean are to provide the US military with information, as it prepares to carry out cruise missiles strikes against President Bashar al-Assad.

Whitehall sources said Britain’s decision not to take part in attacks punishing the regime for using chemical weapons only covered its Armed Forces, and the sharing of intelligence would continue.

GCHQ’s powerful eavesdropping facilities on Cyprus, around only 100 miles from the Syrian coast, are expected to play a key role in intelligence gathering for military action.

One source said: “We always support our allies and the Commons’ vote was about military action, not about intelligence.” The Cyprus post intercepts messages from across the Middle East and is central to Britain’s intelligence sharing with the US, according to documents leaked by American whistleblower Edward Snowden. Washington pays for half its costs and in return has a say in what it does.

Meanwhile, the military build-up in the region was continuing yesterday, with the arrival of a US navy amphibious landing ship carrying hundreds of US Marines.

Related Articles
Ed Miliband faces growing criticism from Labour ranks
31 Aug 2013
Syria crisis: Anti-war protesters claim public opinion victory
31 Aug 2013
Damascus waits for its missiles
31 Aug 2013

The vessel, the USS San Antonio, is also equipped with helicopters and V-22 Osprey aircraft, that could be deployed to help rescue downed pilots. The US authorities have described its arrival in the eastern Mediterranean as part of “prudent planning”.

Six RAF Typhoons and a Sentry early warning plane remain in place in Cyprus to protect the spy bases and Britain’s airfield from possible attack by “rogue aircraft”.

The Royal Navy also said there were no plans to move a Trafalgar class nuclear-powered submarine which had been on standby to join an assault. The submarine has a formidable array of spy equipment, but sources said it was now not likely to use it to back the attacks.

Those attacks will almost certainly begin with a night time barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the US Sixth fleet.

By last night the fleet had positioned five Arleigh Burke class destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean, each armed with up to 90 missiles. USS Stout has been deployed to join sister ships Mahan, Ramage, Barry and Gravely, a US defence official said. The addition of a missile carrying US submarine gives Barack Obama the option to launch hundreds of missiles in “surgical” strikes across Syria.

A list of possible targets includes command and control centres such as the general staff, special forces and military intelligence headquarters in Damascus, along with Assad’s palace itself.

Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure is also likely to be hit. There are research labs in Hama, Latika and Homs. Missiles could also strike artillery depots used to launch chemical attacks, but analysts have suggested America will shy away from hitting stockpiles themselves for fear of toxic chemical leaks, or leaving smashed bunkers full of chemicals open to plunder by jihadist rebels.

Opposition rebels also want Mr Obama to hit Syrian airbases, including the Dumayr and Mazzeh which are being used by Iranian cargo planes to supply Assad’s forces.

America also has F-16 fighters poised around the region, at bases in Incirlik in Turkey and in Jordan. Two Fifth fleet carrier strike groups with dozens of F-18s are within reach in the Gulf and longer range bombers could be sent from America.

However the strength of Syria’s air defences and American spending cuts which have grounded combat squadrons both mean the US is likely to rely on missile strikes.

As the American military colossus assembles, France is the only European nation prepared to join in. It has sent an anti-missile warfare destroyer to the region and has the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, in Toulon, southern France.

French aircraft can be equipped with Scalp missiles and it has seven Mirage 2000 combat jets in Djibouti and six Rafales are stationed in Abu Dhabi.

In the face of such a build-up, Syria said it expects to be attacked imminently.

“We are expecting an attack at any moment. We are ready to retaliate at any moment,” a security official said.

The country’s state television has been broadcasting images of Syrian soldiers training, fighter jets soaring in the sky and tanks firing at unseen targets, to the backdrop of martial music.

Among Assad’s options for retaliation, one of the most feared is a strike from his stockpile of Scud missiles. Some estimates put his arsenal at 500 and all are capable of carrying chemical weapons. Cyprus, Turkey, Israel and Jordan are all well within range. Any attack with Scuds, particularly on Israel, would invite dangerous escalation across the region.

To combat the possibility, the US and Nato have built a shield of Patriot missile batteries surrounding Syria ready to knock down incoming missiles.

US batteries are in place in Turkey and Jordan, while Israel has its own missiles in place.

Reports from inside Syria suggest the regime is already trying to lessen the impact of air attacks by dispersing and hiding Scud missile launchers and aircraft. Senior military officers are also steering clear of headquarters buildings and bunkers which are expected to be hit.

Assad also has a wide range of unconventional options for revenge, using his allies and militant groups around the region.

Turkey will be on alert for car bombings in its border towns similar to one in Reyhanli earlier this year.

In Amman, Jordan, security will be bolstered in the city’s five star hotels, which are popular with foreigners.

Assad could also encourage attacks by militant groups linked to his Iranian allies. The Shia militia Hizbollah could be persuaded to fire rockets from southern Lebanon into Israel. The Iranian-sponsored militants group Islamic Jihad has also frequently fired rockets into Israel.
Share
0

Facebook
0

Twitter
0

Email

LinkedIn
0



Syria
News »World News »Middle East »UK News »Mobile »In Syria


Syria missile strike: view from Damascus

In order to bury the evidence!

dreamcatcher 31 Aug 2013 21:58 - 28558 of 28564

"MPs have privately begun to voice concerns that their leader made a catastrophic mistake by engineering the defeat of the Government’s motion in the House of Commons on Thursday night. That's the sentence that hits home with me Chris."




PRIVATELY?

They have being doing it for months.

They just can't find where they left the knives.