Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[mongers]

Weenies.

It's unbelievable

There's strong support in Socialist-led France for supporting the US (led by an pleasant enough Democrat) for intervening, and a British Tory government (!) won't be joining in

Don't know that this'll play well for Labour in the long-run either.

I see this through the prism of Vietnam, Wilson far sightedly refused to get involved, whereas Australia and New Zealand (SEATO) did.  This time the MPs and public choose to make a similar judgement about the likely outcome of war in Syria.   

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed. But I'd argue that's a function of their power, not their credibility.

They have the power to blow Seoul all to shit.

[Sheilbh]

They have the power to blow Seoul all to shit.

They have. They would be totally destroyed if they did which changes the balance. Also the nuke is still new so we'll see how that plays out.

But say the US and South Korea were taking action against North Korea, the threat would be far more credible if made by China than North Korea - because of power.

I see this through the prism of Vietnam, Wilson far sightedly refused to get involved, whereas Australia and New Zealand (SEATO) did.  This time the MPs and public choose to make a similar judgement about the likely outcome of war in Syria.   

But there's no troops involved. Not everything should be seen through the prism of Vietnam. Our allies want to take an action, supported by our government, that has minimal cost or danger to British forces or interests and we've said no

[Admiral Yi]

They have. They would be totally destroyed if they did which changes the balance. Also the nuke is still new so we'll see how that plays out.

But say the US and South Korea were taking action against North Korea, the threat would be far more credible if made by China than North Korea - because of power.

It would be far more credible because China hasn't talked out of it's ass a fraction as much as North Korea has.

By your logic a British threat to respond to an invasion of The Falklands with force would be less credible than a similar US threat.  Not true.  If the UK issued such a threat my expectation of you guys backing it up would be near 100%. Similarly by your logic a threat from, say, Belgium would be less credible than one from North Korea.

[CountDeMoney]

But there's no troops involved. Not everything should be seen through the prism of Vietnam. Our allies want to take an action, supported by our government, that has minimal cost or danger to British forces or interests and we've said no

No shit, man.  Limited cruise missile strikes are as low a risk statement of force as you can get, and still not adversely alter the strategic situation.

But that's OK;  for all the bullshit France always gets from ignorant redneck American zomg-they-surrender-all-teh-time Freedom Fries Guys, France has always been consistent with non-proliferation issues, regardless of the party in charge.

[Sheilbh]

By your logic a British threat to respond to an invasion of The Falklands with force would be less credible than a similar US threat.  Not true.  If the UK issued such a threat my expectation of you guys backing it up would be near 100%. Similarly by your logic a threat from, say, Belgium would be less credible than one from North Korea.

Exactly, I think both are true. If the US threatened to intervene that would be more credible and more likely to change Argie policy (don't forget the Argentines were amazed the British did respond). Similarly I'd take a North Korean threat as more credible than, say, Switzerland or Belgium making a threat.

But that's OK;  for all the bullshit France always gets from ignorant redneck American zomg-they-surrender-all-teh-time Freedom Fries Guys, France has always been consistent with non-proliferation issues, regardless of the party in charge.

And they love nothing less than bombing the Levant.

[mongers]

I see this through the prism of Vietnam, Wilson far sightedly refused to get involved, whereas Australia and New Zealand (SEATO) did.  This time the MPs and public choose to make a similar judgement about the likely outcome of war in Syria.   

But there's no troops involved. Not everything should be seen through the prism of Vietnam. Our allies want to take an action, supported by our government, that has minimal cost or danger to British forces or interests and we've said no

You misunderstand my position, I'm not arguing for or against action, rather I'm seeking to explain what might be the motivation of the electorate and MPs. 

And part of that is the fear that this'll be a first or early step in a greater involvement in a future Syrian quagmire.

[Sheilbh]

I think they were voting against Iraq. They were trying to exorcise Blair.

Also I don't think this would've been the result had MPs known it would've been the result. And I think Miliband either lost too much of his shadow cabinet, or he was playing politics

[mongers]

I think they were voting against Iraq. They were trying to exorcise Blair.
......

So you're saying against Blairite agenda?

[Admiral Yi]

Exactly, I think both are true. If the US threatened to intervene that would be more credible and more likely to change Argie policy (don't forget the Argentines were amazed the British did respond). Similarly I'd take a North Korean threat as more credible than, say, Switzerland or Belgium making a threat.

It's impossible for a country to have less credibility than North Korea.

You seem to be confusing credibility with leverage Shelf.  Credibility is the belief you will in fact do what you threaten to do.  Can you honestly say that when the UK makes a threat the probability they will carry it out is lower than that of the US?

[Legbiter]

Er, that was unexpected. That has to sting for Cameron. 

[Sheilbh]

So you're saying against Blairite agenda?

God if only there were still a Blairite agenda on offer

You seem to be confusing credibility with leverage Shelf.  Credibility is the belief you will in fact do what you threaten to do. 

As I've said I think credibility is a function of power. Which isn't leverage - to my mind that's more to do with what you can offer and threaten.

Can you honestly say that when the UK makes a threat the probability they will carry it out is lower than that of the US?

Now, even moreso. Though I do love that Attlee line when questioned about entering the Korean war for a 'distant obligation', 'distant, yes; but an obligation nonetheless'

[Admiral Yi]

Well I'll be happy to bet with you the next time North Korea or the UK make a threat Shelf.

[Sheilbh]

Well I'll be happy to bet with you the next time North Korea or the UK make a threat Shelf.

I'll be happy to bet with you the next time Belgium does

[Admiral Yi]

I'll be happy to bet with you the next time Belgium does

Absolutely.