Awol

He has indeed, but then Obama and Cameron are both mugs so it's to be expected.

Yeah, the guy's a prick but he knows how to work the whole situation to Russia's advantage a lot better than Obama does. Agreed, Russia is transporting arms to Assad as fast as their ships can carry them but somehow Putin's a peace maker? Behave! As for rule of law, tell that to the civilians of Grozny who were pulverised with fuel-air explosives and, it is believed, chemical nerve agents... Oh the irony. Vlad is thug and a gangster, I find it hard to believe anyone would be taken in by him.

Coward. That's our 'special relationship' ruined. I'll now have to turn to my oldest ally. your left hand ? No, Inarboo.

I was disappointed with the lack of pictures too.

Coward.

Not in my view. That's half the problem. It's like if you come across someone lying in the road, hurt - if you can get away with it, it's in your best interests to take their wallet and then leave the mess for someone else to deal with. It's not in your best interests to help them back to their feet, give them first aid and the taxi fair to the hospital, or wait for an ambulance to come.... The whole concept of international relations is supposed to be about an international community, not simply everyone for themselves. For me the primary duty of an elected government in any country is to do what they feel is in the best interests of their own people first. When it comes right down to it history shows that on a national level the world is very much everyone for themselves. One could argue that is exactly what happened during WW2, the US didn't get involved until it was absolutely in their best interests to do so - and they were our 'friends' then too. I don't seriously knock them for that, it's what I'd expect our government to do. Countries generally only act together when their common interests align, or at least where acting doesn't actively harm their own interests. If the US Gov genuinely felt that Syria posed a national security threat to them then they should be compelled to act on that basis. Persuading Assad to hand over a limited amount of his CW stocks (they'll never give up everything) is just PR in my view.

Not me, they should act in whatever way bests supports their own interests. My point was that team Obama don't see to know what they actually want to achieve and are therefore almost entirely reactive. Not a problem if you are Montenegro, more so if you are the leader of the free world.

Yep, almost as well played as Cameron, ie not very. So that's France on their own now then. France. They've already said they'll only go as part of a coalition so no chance of the Frogs steaming into Assad on their own. The incredible thing is that an off the cuff, unguarded remark by Kerry at a press conference was then jumped on by the Russians as a means to disrupt US planning, and now Obama has actually started running with it. If nothing else it tells you that the US has no actual policy on Syria and are literally making it up as they go along. Given that this is one of the most dangerous situations in foreign policy terms since the end of the cold war (if not the most dangerous), that's an illuminating and incredibly worrying revelation.

You could shag her to death? Well maybe not to death, but in Cheryl's case until my hip joints turned to chalk dust. I'd just gag her first.

Yep. Chav.

Never heard of her. Cheryl Cole - with her new tattoo: A crime against such a beautiful derrière.

^ Excellent.

Seems the Syrians have conducted a probe towards RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus with a couple of SU-24's. Maybe Assad is disappointed that we've declined to get involved?

Peter I don't buy your proposition that there is some level of moral equivalence between drone strikes (counter productive and illegal as they may be) and the large scale use of rape, torture and murder against a civilian population to no end other than sadistic terrorism. I also don't think that the reconciliation processes in either Ulster or South Africa are comparable to the situation in Syria. The only modern point of reference I can think of is Bosnia, and although the numbers of dead in Syria are not as high as that yet, it will almost certainly go that way, or worse. The only thing that stopped the killing there was direct intervention and the realisation in Belgrade that continuing the campaign would mean fighting NATO. The only thing that stopped the problem from re-emerging was physical separation of the populations on the ground. The main problem with the political solution you suggest is its utter rejection by the belligerent parties in the country. The Basel II proposals are dead, there is no political peace process to cling to. The UN are not going to do anything, not because the west is undermining its moral authority but because it has none. The other actors (Saudi and Qatar on one side, Iran and Russia on the other) are not going to be pressured by anyone into disengaging their support for either the Jihadists or Assad. That leaves the only people who want a free and pluralistic society as the only side not being directly supported. Is that sensible?

Against my better judgement I spent 20 minutes yesterday watching a selection of the lovely youtube videos posted by supporters of each side in Syria that highlight each others atrocities. Not the chemical stuff, but the up close and personal, methodical and brutal torture of helpless people. The SAA, FSA and Jihadis are animals all. "Disturbing" isn't an adjective that does the images justice and it's reminiscent of Bosnia, although admittedly what we saw on TV from there was usually the aftermath, rather than the events themselves recorded by laughing psychopaths on 8 megapixel smart phones. The hatred is extraordinary and it feels like you're watching the death of a country, with every ounce of decency and humanity wrung from it by the hands of madmen. The idea of these factions being reconciled is too incredible to contemplate. It's no wonder the world is choosing to turn away and say 'let them get on with it', because to engage with the reality is emotionally overwhelming. I don't blame religion, or the US, Russians or Iranians, no force beyond the will of the individual can compel man to do that to man, or all too frequently, woman and child. All I know is that if evil currently has an address then it's Syria, and for those (myself included) who have suggested that doing nothing is an option, please, spend 20 minutes doing what I did last night. If your conscience still thinks that non-intervention is an option then you're a harder hearted man than I. EDIT: The irony that this puts me in the same camp as St. Tony Blair has not been missed..

Hang on, Iran is fighting inside Syria with its Al Quds forces on the side of those who (are most likely to) have used CW's! How can a direct protagonist in a conflict take up a peacekeeping role and have even the remotest degree of credibility with the other side? EDIT: That's like saying Soviet Russia had a legitimate reason to get involved in the Hungarian uprising because it was defending a political ally - and therefore protecting its own interests.

Obviously don't disagree with you about the carve up of post Ottoman Arabia into artificial states, but Iran (Persia) doesn't fall into that bracket. That doesn't alter the fact that Iran is being proposed in some quarters as a credible partner for peace negotiations, despite the fact they are a boots on the ground combatant in the war!

There is at least logic to that position though. Pick a side and do something. A punitive strike will achieve nothing so if there is to be a response to the CW attacks then it has to be decisive or it is pointless. Just on the point you and others have raised about involving the Iranians in peace negotiations, how can they be more legitimate peace makers than for example the US, when they actually have IRGC fighters on the ground fighting for Assad and officers leading Syrian regular units- leaving aside that their proxies HZ are up to their necks in the fighting and are credited with actually turning the tide against the rebel forces? The Iranians haven't tried to hide the IRGC involvement and have held public funerals for their "martyrs" back home. It does somewhat nullify the logic that that this is all stirred up by the west and if "we" stay out of it at least the Syrians are being left alone to sort out their own problems.

Fair one, sorry! The key is peeling away Russia from Assad and bringing them on side will take patience, creating the perception that their opinion matters by being patient, and by making some large concessions to Russia elsewhere on other issues. Realpolitik. We have time because the Syria problem is going nowhere fast.

Or, there is always this view to fall back on:

In reply to you and the good by post by Peter below yours, I don't know either and haven't seen a public presentation of the evidence the US and ourselves claim to have. Kerry standing at a podium and saying "we know this" simply doesn't cut the mustard post 2003. Maybe that presentation has happened and I missed it, or maybe they are waiting for the UN inspectors report to put it all out together, I don't know. Without the evidence I don't see how military action can be on the table as an option, but once out I don't think there is another country I'd trust to give the "independent verification" of that evidence as Peter is suggesting - not withstanding the fact western intelligence agencies are not going to open up their sourcing and analysis to foreign countries. So it becomes an individual judgement of whether, on balance, it is compelling. It ain't there yet. Where I differ from you and Peter is the belief that this is more likely to be a false flag job. I think it happened and given the volume of casualties over a large area I think there is a very high probability that Assad's forces did it, and although not necessarily ordered by him personally that is moot point once kids start croaking from nerve agent poisoning. To be honest I'm completely torn in that I don't want the UK involved but as a member of the permanent five we do have a responsibility to prevent and deter the use of chemical weapons. International treaties like that which prohibit their use are only meaningful if they are enforced, but does the fact this treaty pre-dates the UN, and the fact Russia and China would never endorse action that could set a precedent against their own potential future domestic behaviour (or retrospective sanction in Russia's case for Chechnya), mean that they as P-5 members should be allowed to veto a response? I don't think it does, necessarily. Why? The key values underpinning liberal democracy only prevail through the potential threat of force to uphold them, or as Frederick the Great said: "Diplomacy without weapons is like music without instruments". The values we hold to be non-negotiable (like not offing people with poison gas) are not the default setting of humanity as history shows, and maintaining their supremacy over dictatorship sometimes requires force and sacrifice. So I think in principle and based on the production of sufficient evidence, there is a case for intervention. The question of why should the US, UK and/or France step up to this and shoulder responsibility is a fairly simple one in my view, leadership.The reason the vote in Parliament mattered internationally is because love us loathe us, what the UK says and does matters. Large parts of the world are yet to catch up to our post imperial, 'woe is us' self perception and similar is true of our garlic chomping neighbours. The US is looked at as a very strong, petulant and flailing child in many parts of the world (particularly where I live) but the same is not true of the UK, which rightly or wrongly is considered to be more fair and moral in its judgement. No one asks "what are the Germans, or the Japanese, or the Brazilians doing about this?" But they do look to Britain. So that, for me, answers the question of 'why us'? However the use of force without clear political goals is totally irresponsible, and what about the law of unintended consequences? A few Tomahawks and Storm Shadows slamming into C2 assets as a punitive response seems pointless, and if intervention is called for (regardless of its trigger) then it should be geared to bring about a decisive result. What if after a bombardment Assad uses CW again? Another wave of bombs? Then another? Once force is used then you have to be in it to win it or you step back and look even more impotent having used force and failed to make a difference. Are we, the US or any other allies prepared to own the problem? Let's say the answer to that is yes and the goal is to remove Assad, replacing him with a secular democratic regime of some type. We know that the diverse opposition contains some well organised and vicious jihadi groups who want a Taliban style regime for the country. The FSA (mainly defectors from the regular army) won't wear that and do want a democratic state, so even if Assad goes you'll have another civil war grinding on and on, supported on the beardy side by Saudi and Qatari money and with the Iranians looking to destabilise whoever gets the upper hand. In to that mix we'd have to pour direct and massive support for the democrats in the FSA and probably reconcile them with the bulk of the army they are currently fighting in order to crush the militants and create the ground for an inclusive not sectarian society post regime removal/overthrow. On the doing nothing option there is a danger (if not already reached) that Syria becomes a huge version of Lebanon in the 80's with Shia, Sunni, Christian and Druze all fighting each other and the place becoming a living hell. It could be argued that with 4 million internally displaced and 2 million refugees in the near abroad (and at a rate that is increasing rapidly) Syria already is hell with the worst refugee crisis since WW2. Does that in itself provide a moral imperative to act and if not, what level would have to be reached before it did? Is there even a point at which human becomes unacceptable and prompts action to try and address the root of the problem? Obviously this reply covers far more ground than your question addressed but I don't think any of it can be looked at in isolation to get a satisfactory response. All I know is that I don't have the answers and I'm glad its not my decision to make. Arab Spring, eh? Not turning out too well for anyone.

Peter, is it your view that the Assad's regime has not used chemical weapons and the attack on 21/8 was a false flag or rebel inspired incident? Or are you just opposed to UK jumping in militarily to dish out some punitive punishment?

The bigger picture is that removing the Alawite regime (it's not about Assad personally) and replacing it with a Sunni one of whatever stripe significantly weakens and isolates Iran by dissolving its only real regional alliance. It also makes make life for HZ much more difficult in Lebanon. The fact that this effectively throws the country of Syria and its people (the majority Sunni's no more wish to live under a Saudi inspired theocratic regime than they do a secular tyranny) under the bus doesn't even appear to be a consideration.

Although he's no friend of theirs the end of Assad's regime would be a strategic disaster for Israel and they'll be demanding all kinds of reassurances from Washington at the moment. The IDF's offensive strikes into Syria have been to destroy kit that was being transferred to HZ in Lebanon for future use against them. Fair play, I reckon.

USA bombs Syria = HZ rockets falling on Northern/Central Israel. Given the racing certainty of the former, it's hardly reckless of the IDF to kick the tyres of their defences in order to prepare for the latter.