Awol

On the WW2 theme, the aptly named and little known Operation Unthinkable Good job everyone thought better of it too, the Soviet army circa 1945 was a very tough beast indeed.

Assad's regime is an Iranian client state now, the Israeli's haven't tried to change that, yet they and Saudi cooperate on anti-Iranian efforts elsewhere. Similarly Iran have troops fighting Saudi backed Sunni rebels in Syria, but finance and support AQAP in Yemen. This stuff is not consistent or neat and doesn't fit into comforting boxes or sound bites - which isn't a dig at you CED, just an observation this thread would benefit from.

Peter your last paragraph is hyperbole. There is a team of UN chemical weapons inspectors at the site now so clearly we haven't moved beyond the need for proof in a rush to war - besides which we wouldn't be going to war anyway. The only Israeli strikes I am aware of were targetting weapons passed by Assad forces to HZ and were being moved into Lebanon - for future use against Israel. As for the Mail story, well you may have a long wait given their propensity for making things up. Regarding capacity/capability, the delivery requirement is not minimal at all and to spread the agent over an area wide enough to affect so many people requires specialist munitions and in sufficient volume. There is no evidence that the rebels (of whichever group) have that capability but we know that Assad does. I'd wait to see exactly what evidence is presented in the next few days before pinning your colours to the 'false flag' mast.

What can he do? Russia is already supplying Assad with weapons and he's not going to declare war on the west. For those interested in this sort of thing however it would provide an interesting test of Russia's latest air defence weapons (which Assad has) against western 5th generation air power.

I strongly suspect that chemical weapons were used against civilians in one of the few remaining rebel pockets in Damascus, and that to deliver them on a scale necessary to kill hundreds and injure 1000's is beyond the rebels capability - even if they chose to inflict this wound on themselves which seems a dubious proposition at best. I also think that following the Iraq experience neither the US, UK or anyone else will take any action at all until rock solid proof is in the public domain. It would be preferable not to intervene directly in Syria but the use of chemical weapons (and sarin does not compare to WP in Gaza, however revolting the latter may be in isolation) cannot go unchallenged because it invites their wider use.

Agree with the Fed, I mean STN. Manning deserved the sentence he got and IMO is a very different case to Snowden.

You think they don't have it already?

Hopefully this is one of those cases that will snowball and lead to lots of embarrassing questions to answer. I would definitely think that May has got her hands dirty with this one. IMO this is defnitely a resignation/sacking affair, if May's involvement can be ascertained .... This decision will have been taken waaaaay above that trout's head. How the f*** are the UK, US and other going to lecture old Vlad on his treatment of journalists when we are behaving (or have become) like some tinpot dictatorship? It's not just Anglo countries either. France, Austria, Spain, Germany (lets just say for ease, the EU) are also up to their nuts in this, as evidenced by the attempts to ban flights that might carry Snowden through their airspace. We are seeing now the harvest of the anti-terror laws passed under Blair that we were assured would only be used to target the "bad people". Well here's the proof. If you are journalist, you sleep with a journalist or maybe just sit and have and brew with a journalist, you are now fair game to be treated as an enemy of the state. This isn't about Labour or the Tories who are equally culpable as mouth pieces for the powerful, this about "them" and where you as a citizen sit in the hierarchy of a corporate state. Mussolini would have been proud.

As Cameron said, "we're all in this together".

Without laughing?

You.smegging.beauty. What a game!

That was a very good read, thanks. While we are almost certainly under similar levels of surveillance in the UK, the most obvious and striking difference with the US is the additional layer of official intimidation and persecution described in that article - and others. If you publicly disagree with or question the actions of US authorities then they are coming after you, one way or another. I don't know what political label you'd put on the way the US is headed but it doesn't include "free" or "democratic" and if I was an American I'd be very worried for the future because the state is totally out of control. It also (imho) provides at least a degree of sympathy for the mantra: "from my cold, dead hand(s)". If you can't keep them honest, eventually you may have to make them so.

Mine as well. Speak as you find, and I find him a decent constituency MP. That, and the fact that certain policemen tried to stitch him up will ensure that he is returned once again with a decent majority, when the time comes. Mitchell could - and might - be the incarnation of Alan B'stard and he'd still be elected. Sutton is as true Blue as those barren, northern wastelands (and Erdington) are Labour strongholds. My view of him is formed by personal experience only, not the s*it house UK media and corrupt Policemen.

My local MP was Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield). You'd need to get up early in the morning to find a bigger throbber than that.

rest of article .... To be fair that is probably in the context of them or Balls and Miliband. Given a more competent and credible alternative I doubt a higher % of people would prefer Osborne and Cameron in charge of the economy, but that isn't the case, so apparently they do. Really does show how awful people perceive Labour's current leadership to be.

Drat, that is just a ridiculous and irrelevant load of old waffle. The thing that matters is whether the figures are accurate, not the source they came from. If the figures are correct then the point stands that UK farmers are not doing well out of the CAP. That is not contentious, or obsessive, or have anything to do with some bizarre reference to polite society. It is, as the old saying goes, a fact. Attacking the website I took the figures from is simply a transparent and weak attempt at deflection on your part.

So you think their figures are wrong then, yes? Any evidence to show they are? If they were then people like you (pro EU) would be tearing them to shreds with facts, as that is not the case I see no reason to doubt their validity. It's that well worn VT tactic of attacking the messenger (in this case the website) when the message itself can't be challenged in order to try and discredit it, i.e. exactly what you have tried - and failed - to do above. Must try harder

Well, the big landowners get a lot. Iain Duncan Smith received €1.5m over 10 years, for example. Here. At least you didn't use that well know "impartial" organisation Open Europe as your source of info Peter So are you saying the figures are wrong? If so, why? If not, what's the problem?

No that's keep French farmers in house and home, as it was always intended to do. And no English farms get subsidies at all? Aside from the fact it was a tongue in cheek joke directed at Tony, actually we don't do well out of the CAP, and between 2007 - 2013 made a net contribution of £7.1 billion. Since Blair gave up part of the rebate that contribution is now increasing year on year. Source If we wanted to subsidise our farmers then sending that money to Brussels and receiving less in return seems like a fairly brainless way of going about it.

No that's keep French farmers in house and home, as it was always intended to do.

What sort of conditions? Do they have to buy stuff from us or do we get their produce at a reduced rate? Conditions is the wrong word, sweeteners is probably more accurate although it doesn't always pay off. For example we were giving 100's of millions in aid to India per year despite the fact it has a nuclear arsenal and a space programme. Why? The hope was they would buy the Typhoon fighter aircraft from us, a deal worth several billions to UK industry. Instead the sneaky buggers went and got their new planes from the French! We might also give money to nations in an attempt to influence their foreign policy, although if a country has such poor governance that its leaders can be bought so readily you always run the risk of being out bid. A more effective policy is simply to bribe the key individuals directly as the Americans, Russians, Chinese and French are fond of doing, but the UK's anti-corruption laws prevent that, so foreign aid is a means to try and achieve the same result. Still, it does allow people in Whitehall, university common rooms and local political party branches to feel all morally superior, as the rest of the world carries on as usual and the UK misses out on valuable contracts and the jobs they create. The continuing naivety of our country regarding this issue is probably its biggest challenge in meeting the realities of globalisation.

Assuming that he is smart enough to slip the US satellite surveillance on the airport that will have picked up his exit, he's as good as in South America already. Russia isn't exactly short of airfields or private charter aircraft and they can't all be watched for the next year.

I don't claim to know for sure where the real power lies (although "Where the Big Money is" seems the most likely and, sadly, logical answer), but Obama has proven himself spineless, at best. Even if he can't make the rules himself, it was quite clear when he was elected that there was significant support for "Change", including the closing of Gitmo. If he had any balls he would at least be making public speeches telling the public what he would like to do instead of drone bombings, spying, imprisonment, and torture. It's not as if this stuff is happening and Obama is powerless to stop it, in terms of the drone strike programme he has reportedly been instrumental in ramping it up - including targetting US citizens abroad for assassination. Combine that with the things he's got up to with the IRS like targetting his political opponents, seizing the records and call information of journalists at AP (and more) etc. then it all adds up to Obama actually being a complete fraud. Not that Romney was a better option.

Sounds like it would help if you didn't have two right feet. Well he can't go putting his left foot forward.

Are you thinking of Churchill? No, I thought it was clear who we were talking about.