And Speaking of the Brits on Syria


I am having a hard time seeing when exactly Obama was supposed to be bench-pressing MPs into doing what he wanted them to do, given how he is not president of England. I mean, I’m sure Obama would have liked it if Parliament had voted his way, but other than calling up David Cameron and saying, “Dude, what the fuck?” I’m trying to picture how he could have influenced the vote and coming up with various things I’m pretty sure are illegal outside a Le Carré novel.

Quite possibly, Chuckles, the two wars you cheered for which almost immediately went tits-up have made your opinion (and Obama’s, for that matter) invalid in the land of tea and scones. If we wanted to keep our allies happy, doing them the very great favor of listening to them once in a while over the past decade might have been a good place to start.


11 thoughts on “And Speaking of the Brits on Syria

  1. Well, sez Craphammer, the United States does run the world, after all. The UK is just one of our subsidiaries.
    And every neocon in this country thinks exactly the same way, and I doubt that will ever change.

  2. Snarki, quite agreed. Flourine has all sorts of uses. Can be a nasty chemical to deal with but also used to make toothpaste (See mom, I told you that brushing your teeth was bad for you).
    While I can at least complement the source in pointing that out, I still seem to remember Iraq getting Yellow-cake Uranium as part of that clear, incontrovertible proof a decade ago.

  3. Hey, when France didn’t join us, we applied the Bush doctrine (If you’re not with us, then you are are a terrorist). French Fries became Freedom Fries.
    What would be a product associated with Britain that we could be as cute with? Perhaps in the same way we didn’t want our kids to take French in school, can I suggest that we change the language of our schools from English to French (as the French have voted in favor of intervention in Syria).
    (And hey, I know we conveniently forgot that the French explicitly deny having any association with French Fries).

  4. @Duke: Cameron mostly lost the vote for domestic political reasons. The Tory MPs who voted no are largely Euroskeptics who want the Posh Boy replaced. Arrogance was another reason for the loss: they could have glommed on to a Labour party proposal and won the vote. It was a close call that didn’t have a lot to do with Presidential stink eye.
    @Maple: How about Freedom Muffins?

  5. The POTUS stink eye just doesn’t have the juice it once had in the former Motherland. Being fooled once was enough for the Brits apparently.

  6. MapleStreet: if you read the wikipedia entry on sarin, you’ll see that it needs HF (nasty, nasty stuff) or NaF. Perhaps KF could substitute.
    BUT, it also requires isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol). Doesn’t make the rubbing alcohol a ‘nerve gas ingredient’. Same with the KF: need something like that, but it’s not the critical ingredient.
    The organophosphate that you react with NaF, on the other hand, is a much more of a smoking gun: you only use such compounds for nasty poisons, it’s uncommon, and non-trivial to make.
    Focusing on the KF for sarin is much like focusing on the high explosive in a nuclear bomb, and ignoring the plutonium.

  7. To all of y’all who posted new material for today:
    I was pleasantly surprised to see extensive new information for today. Thank you. But please take care of yourselves including relaxation time.

  8. In something which I don’t trust the source of the video but find the like from Britain and Syria intesting enough to keep my eyes open for more info:
    The Daily Record reports the U.K. government allowed British companies to export chemicals needed to make sarin gas to Syria.the source but sounds interesting enough about Britain and Syria that I plan to keep my eyes open for confirmation:
    Plus, even the video admits the chemicals were NaF and KF. Both are used for all sorts of industrial applications. So I say low reliability at this point pending further info.

Comments are closed.