Awol

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability? Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking. I am glad you find the comments interesting, but again I suspect that your motives are based more out of leading to a specific point. In respect to profits, would you agree or not that arms profits as a result of military interventions into areas such as the Middle East, (and other "trade" agreements that follow) are the norm? That is a key fundamental point here because if you don't then not worth continuing me thinks If we go and fire a few dozen Tomahawk missiles at Syria then it will cost the Government (i.e. the country) quite a few bob, but the only people who would make money from that is Boeing, a US company, and even then only assuming we bothered to replace them. So your comment that "you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else" confused me, because I can't find any logical basis in it. Hence why I asked the question really.

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point us to any? Any at all, anywhere? For someone who claims to have such an interest in such matters I am genuinely surprised that you claim to have never heard of anything on this, or do my spider senses detect a feebly attempted trap. I will go for the latter and leave you to google the various articles, web sites and such that detail the movements of the weapons into Syria. Of course you could believe that Sadaam just got rid of everything and said sorry and had to write out "we must not use WMD" 200,000 times ..... No attempted trap for you, spidey, was just asking you to chuck out a few links as you stated that "there seems to be a lot of evidence". I have had a look just now but can't find anything beyond the realms of David Icke type sites to suggest what you are saying may be correct, just plenty of articles saying what a load of rubbish that theory is.

Another interesting statement from you Drat, how do you think the government intends to generate profits from a punitive strike against Syria's chemical weapons capability? Really quite intrigued to hear the logic behind that thinking.

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point us to any? Any at all, anywhere?

Peter, despite my belief that the Britam link is literally cobblers, I like most will be looking at what evidence is put forward to prove this was Assad with a skeptical eye. The more interesting question is if that evidence is actually incontrovertible (except to kranks who will never accept this isn't a conspiracy driven by outside powers - and please don't take that as a reference to your good self which it isn't), what then? Wee Willie Hague has a point about the large scale use of chemcial weapons, if it is allowed to pass it is the thin end of a very ugly wedge, particularly when the whole area is on a downward spiral to broader conflict anyway.

In 1985, yes they were. Did that mean Saddam had WMD in 2003 following his disarmament programme? No. If he had, one suspects we may have found just a single shred of evidence after we kicked down the doors of Iraq, which of course we did not. Blair's speech about Saddam's WMD programmes being current and extensive etc. were nothing more than a bare faced lie told by a bare faced liar.

Perhaps the most credible explanation against would be the fact that anyone working in security and intelligence is well aware that nothing should be written in an email that you wouldn't be happy to share with the global intelligence community. Now let's just suppose that the CIA or some other f*cked up organisation were seriously considering running a false flag chemical weapons attack, would they really outsource it to a foreign commercial defence contractor of such staggering incompetence that they then sent the most preposterously worded email ever, in clear and fingering the US and Qatari Governments in the process? It is such a comically bad effort that I am convinced it was done by someone with a good sense of humour who fancied winding up the blogosphere. That the Daily Mail was the only publication stupid enough to bite is just further evidence (as if it was necessary) of their utter incompetence. The fact it swiftly disappeared is most probably due to this idiocy being quickly pointed out to them or noticed by a senior editor, rather than the men in black descending on their servers. The Syria situation is difficult, convoluted and serious enough as it is without this kind of blatant wind up being thrown into the mix. Interesting comments, especially with the massive hypocrisy that some are showing now. The fact that Saddam DID have weapons of mas destruction, as was shown by the killings of Kurds, e.g. Halabja, but apparently that was not to be considered. The Iraq war and the comments made at the time (and support) from people like Hague etc, wind quickly forward and we see a pretty much repeat from Hague (see letter in Telegraph). There is a history thread running on VT and one thing you are supposed to learn from is history. It seems that at the moment certain quarters are just looking for another rerun of a previous movie (none of it's real don't you know) Two words: Dodgy dossier. Le Fin.

Just on this little number because you are apparently bestowing some sort of credibility on it, this was the story about Brittam Defence back in January, right? Yep, I'm sold on that not being an utter pi** take to get conspiracy theorists heads revolving at the speed of light! Who'd have thought that Mr Goulding, using his Russian software ("lol"), would be daft enough to discuss committing a war crime that implicates himself, his firm and several national Governments on an unencrypted email that miraculously found its way onto the internet - via photoshop. Please, tell me this isn't the document you are seeking a "credible" explanation for??!

Nah, we need a phone in hosted by Ant and Dec. Dial XXXXXXXXXX 01 to back the psychotic dictator Dial XXXXXXXXXX 02 to back his Jihadi western hating opponents Dial XXXXXXXXXX 03 to carpet bomb them with King James Bibles and hope they see the light Dial XXXXXXXXXX 04 to nuke the whole site from orbit, just to be sure Or maybe put the question on facebook? If HMG can get enough 'likes' then we start firing Tomahawks. That's democracy!

No need to start flapping yet. When a senior government chemical weapons expert mysteriously commits suicide while walking his dog, then we know it's time for a war.

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.