President Trump

Although, with 4 separate congressional committees now looking into the Russia links, it doesn't feel like fake news?

Here we go again. And while I doubt Trump, for all his silly rhetoric, is really convinced the impending escalation in Syria is a wise move, he does deserve a lot of criticism. It's a very sad time for democracy, but a real eye opener for everyone. What was that old saying ? 'If voting actually changed anything they'd abolish it !'   Irrespective of what side of the Brexit fence you're on, I think we can all predict what a chasm of difference there'll be between the electorate voting that we should leave the European Union, and just what we'll end up with.

And is it much better in the United States ?  I think you could make out a very good case that Trump is, by and large, implementing where he can, despite the obstruction, a good number of his domestic policies. And his policies on trade and tariffs, whether viewed as right or wrong, are what he flagged up and said he intended to do. Whether a more protectionist approach is the correct way forward is a different argument, and you're getting what you voted for (assuming you voted Trump) in this instance. The wall on the Mexican border seems to be making painfully slow progress. But if it's built it won't be a surprise because it was what he promised.

But Foreign Policy is another matter entirely. And while Trump didn't advocate a fully isolationist mode, the Obama, Bush, Blair, Cameron favoured tactic of careering around the globe bombing the hell out of places was going to be rejected. But what's it looking like now ? Americans are going to get Hillary's warmongering approach anyway, even though they've avoided her as President. All there's been is a roughly 12 month delay from when she would probably have chosen to kick things off. That's not good enough, and while Clintonesque goading, provoking, and possibly bombing of the Russians, panders to the U.S mainstream media (as my Twitter feed overwhelmingly confirms this morning) it is a betrayal  of what Trump's supporters were voting him into office to do. Just as Remainer May will betray the majority, and the words on the Brexit ballot paper that they put their cross alongside.






It's a separate argument from the merits of any particular policy, but instead about the obligation to honour the outcome of a democratic vote (in Britain's case) or being true to the basis on which you won power (in the case of Trump)

At least as we near the lobbing missiles stage, it becomes far easier for the man in the street to now make sense of the shenanigans in the build up that might not have immediately been clear. Now it becomes relatively easy to join up the dots and see what the Skripal fiasco (total victims three: one cat and two guinea pigs) while everyone else is right as rain, was in aid of. Also, with only the slightest thought as to who controls the tail that wags the American dog needed, everyone can now see why a certain section of the community have upped their efforts to get rid of Corbyn. If you consider which foreign Government most wants to overthrow Assad so that it can get at it's prime target: Iran....then you'll easily note why Maureen Lipman and others recognise that Corbyn as a major Party leader in Parliament, particularly if military intervention has to be voted on by MP's, can be a considerable hindrance. Jezza, with his wish to see evidence first is a damned nuisance, and a Labour Party Leader who came to the 'correct' judgement immediately, and apportioned blame in the 'correct' place straight away, would be infinitely preferable to Maureen and her chums.

In Britain we've voted May into power. Her Foreign policy approach is just as we'd expect it to be. Her attempts to make Brexit essentially meaningless is just what we'd expect from her. We can have no complaints....we've seen her whole politically career and know how she thinks and acts. 

Trump's foreign policy approach however, is not following what he said it would be if ever he became a politician with great power. While he's no doubt come under enormous pressure from America's version of the Blairites to renege on what he'd previously said to Americans, and that had won him votes rather than a more brazen warmonger like Hillary, it must currently be a bitter pill to swallow for a good many Trump voters to see the same old U.S foreign aggression again sparking new and bigger conflicts around the world.

link - copy of UN OPCW Report on the Khan Shaykhun massacre last year.

Conclusions in the report were:

(a) Aircraft dropped munitions over Khan Shaykhun between 0630 and 0700 hours on 4 April 2017;
(b) An aircraft of the Syrian Arab Republic was in the immediate vicinity of Khan Shaykhun between 0630 and 0700 hours on 4 April 2017;
(c) The crater from which the sarin emanated was created on the morning of 4 April 2017;
(d) The crater was caused by the impact of an aerial bomb travelling at high velocity;
(e) A large number of people were affected by sarin between 0630 and 0700 hours on the morning of 4 April 2017;
(f) The number of persons affected by the release of sarin on 4 April 2017, and the fact that sarin reportedly continued to be present at the site of the crater 10 days after the incident, indicate that a large amount of sarin was likely released, which is consistent with its being dispersed through a chemical aerial bomb;
(g) The symptoms of the victims and their medical treatment, as well as the scale of the incident, are consistent with large-scale sarin poisoning;
(h) The sarin identified in the samples taken from Khan Shaykhun was found to have most likely been made with a precursor (DF) from the original stockpile of the Syrian Arab Republic;
(i) The irregularities described in the present annex are not of such a nature as to call into question the aforementioned findings. On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.


Edit - OPCW has just confirmed the UK government findings in respect of the Salisbury poisonings.

Let's hope, although I'm not at all confident, that time is taken for some sensible analysis over the coming days, rather than we witness our Lords and Masters rushing to authorise an avalanche of bombs and missiles. 

In football terms, while I'd be in general agreement with anyone stomping around declaring that a red card must be issued immediately to player X because there's another player lying on the ground and seemingly badly injured, there's still that nagging requirement to firstly ascertain that the injury is genuine, that it was sustained as a result of a foul, and then that we are sure that it was player X who committed the foul.

How much credence would we put if, even though the answer we read was 'yes' to all this, we were reading it in a referee's report written by a Ref who wasn't actually at that match, and the account of events had only been provided by those with connections to the injured player ?

In football, if someone gets an unjust suspension, well, it's hardly a matter of great importance in the bigger scheme of things.

But on the world stage, with the overall consequences for humanity needing to be thought about, a more rigorous checking of the facts and utter certainty in them is surely necessary, when contemplating unleashing your vast killing machine on a region.

rjdgull's link to the UN OPCW report makes interesting reading. But some may still find similarities to an absent Referee's report. Also, by moving in a backward direction through the time line, some who hadn't clicked on the link that rjdgull provided in the 'No Dis-Putin The Winner' thread will not be aware of the more recent info rjdgull had drawn our attention to, since the publication of the report.

For instance, the observation of the Russian Deputy Representative, made during the discussion of that UN OPCW report:


'All conclusions of their work were based on indirect testimonies, most of which was provided by the opposition and by NGOs that have no credibility, such as the White Helmets which are closely associated with Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists'.


But probably of more relevance and more importance is the reference to the words of America's Secretary Of Defence, James Mattis, stating that the US had no evidence that the Syrian Government used the nerve agent sarin at Khan Shaykhun. And of course this is an admission being given in February of this year, which of course does little for the credibility of the conclusions of the October 2017 report on the incident highlighted in rjd's post above.

link - US: 'Oops we forgot to mention....no actual evidence exists



But sadly, and worryingly, it's the same story for the latest 'poison gas atrocity' that Trump and May are rushing off to avenge at this very moment. And what has Defence Secretary Mattis told us about this one ?   "I believe there was a chemical attack. We are looking for the actual evidence”


link - Plenty Of Time To Worry About Evidence Later


I don't know if it's a fundamental difference between Americans and the British, but not letting the MP's speak before we start bombing, possibly coming up with some evidence, hopefully, maybe or maybe not......AFTER we've reduced Syria to further rubble....it just doesn't sit easily with the British. Of course there's already been speculation that one of the first targets of our 'smart' bombs will be the place where the latest poison gas attack took place, just to make sure any evidence there gets utterly destroyed, as it might not fit with the story we've been pushing.

Let's at least get some evidence and then examine it, rather than this mutual finger pointing and 'I bet it was you' accusations. Does that sound reasonable to Donald and Theresa, evidence first, killing spree later ? or are they just too keen to get started ? 

For me, (I have kept a close eye on the dynamics and atrocities undertaken on what is a very complex and multi faceted civil war) evidence of a chemical attack out there is pretty damning and of course the results of the attack from an Assad /Putin perspective was a spectacular success - a well entrenched and well armed rebel group in a highly urban environment surrendered and have been bused along with their families to the North of Syria saving many military casualties and all in all a nice bit of ethnic cleansing, job done. A policy of appeasement gets you no where in the long term and at least some sort of marker was set in the sand from the action taken last night. Whether it was enough to prevent this happening again, only time will tell.....

Made me smile mixing up Corbyn with Ronnie Corbett who very sadly passed away 2 years ago.