Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wasn't saying it would be wise or that I was endorsing it; simply that, legally speaking, if there were an attack on a US ship or other asset engaging in humanitarian operations there, it would satisfy the legal requirement in section 2(c)., Which may or may not even be required, depending who you ask.

My fault Ouze. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything like that. I should have clarified more. If we launch an attack on Syria with those destroyers and Syria responds back and nails one of our destroyers and then Obama commands to conduct ground operations. I have to call for impeachment for serious brain fart issues as in we attacked first.

It does have a certain element of "not hitting you, can't get mad" to it, doesn't it? Except I guess it would be more like "hitting you, but don't get mad or we'll stab you".

I've got a really bad feeling about this, it just really feels like "Gulf of Tonkin 2".

 Seaward wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Thank god...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

The UK won't be firing missiles into Syria. Cameron's still mouthing off, but no military action.

So I'm sure that means we can enjoy a nice, peaceful Syrian intervention without these weenies telling us what to do, right? There won't be any bs, "Do as I say, not as I do," out of Britain.

You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.

 Ketara wrote:
You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.

'A' serious axe? Seaward is nothing but axes all glued together, all constantly needing to be ground.

He's not the only one. It's interesting to skim through the bbc comments. About 10% of the American commentators regard their own Government as war criminals, 20% gloat about Obama getting egg on his face, and another 10% say, 'Whelp, your call, fair enough'.

What concerns me mildly is the other 60% going on about the British as being traitors, the special relationship ending now, etcetc. I begin to wonder if that's the general feeling over there, and if so, whether or not we should begin aligning ourselves more with Europe as a power after all.

We might well be allies, but that doesn't mean we have to follow America onto every battleground every time the President of the US feels like jumping into the Middle-East. When America was dubious about Libya, you didn't get that sort of reaction over here.

I dislike the concept that unless we're blind lapdogs, the US has no use for us despite our long history together. It's seriously caused me to start rethinking my position on Europe.

The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” . Period....Syria does not meet the requirement, 911 did.

Although that doesn't explain Iraq. Or Afghanistan for that matter, considering all but 1 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabian.

 Jihadin wrote:
That's not enough justification to put "Boots on Ground" and commence combat operations. Obama, I hope, will stick with the Tomahawks and send those in and not fighter pilots. I highly doubt we get a live pilot back if he/she was shot down over Syria.

Having a look around the net I found the US has bombed Syria before - 1983 in fact. A couple of planes were lost, I think one went into the sea and the pilots escaped, the other was captured and I think a diplomat travelled there some time later to negotiate his eventual release.

 Pacific wrote:

The War Powers Act doesn’t allow a president to use force absent authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” . Period....Syria does not meet the requirement, 911 did.

Although that doesn't explain Iraq. Or Afghanistan for that matter, considering all but 1 of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabian.

*face palms over the Afghanistan thing* The Taliban, Afghanistans governing body, was providing safe haven for Osama Bin Laden, that guy who ordered the attack on 9/11. Despite that, Congress still gave approval for a use of force. As for Iraq, President Bush did gain Congress's approval before th at happened.

So did you misunderstand what he was saying, or just wanted to showcase extreme ignorance?

About to go into work now so don't have time to write a reply (and I realise I've opened a can of worms here, my mistake, that to be honest I'm not going to spend effort trying to explain).

No need for the insulting reply though, in any case.

Well, to be honest, I'm personally a bit freaked out about this latest vote. Despite not tending to agree with Labour too often, their amendment did seem fairly reasonable (we agree to military action in principle, if there's compelling evidence). But that was discounted as well (yet Milliband still seems to be gloating over the votes results...)

If the UK doesn't then decide to get involved after the inevitable results from the UN team, history is not going to look favourably on us at all.

Edit: From my understanding the rough summary of the different proposals was:

Cameron: "Please agree with the principle of doing military action in response to the use of chemical weapons (but we'll probably wait for the UN to come back. Probably)."
Milliband: "Please agree with the principle of doing military action in response to the use of chemical weapons after we have some compelling publicly available evidence from the UN team and elsewhere."

Result: "No military action at all, no matter what. Yet."

The first outcome would have been 'fine' in my mind, if Iraq hadn't happened and there was some suitable reserve of public trust around. The second seems cautious, but fair enough at least there's a display of the UK having principles against war crimes.

The result? Well, the result just worries me. A whole lot.

 Compel wrote:

The result? Well, the result just worries me. A whole lot.

Why? The UK is in the middle of a political (because of the whole Scotish independence), and economic crisis, isn't it?

Why are you in such a hurry to join the US into what undoubtedly be yet another middle eastern disaster?

 Compel wrote:


The first outcome would have been 'fine' in my mind, if Iraq hadn't happened and there was some suitable reserve of public trust around. The second seems cautious, but fair enough at least there's a display of the UK having principles against war crimes.

We're in bed with Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We regularly hobnob with and court people who suppress and murder their own people. British politics has always been more accurately referred to as British Realpolitik. We got the label 'Perfidious Albion' from somewhere after all.

Ergo, we have no real principles against war crimes.

 Ketara wrote:
You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.

Not at all. I'd simply like your government to shut up once it's decided it's not going to do anything.

 Ketara wrote:
We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').

If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.

Maybe that was his intent?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').

If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.

Maybe that was his intent?

.....you are a dangerous man, Frazzled. I hadn't even considered that possibility. You may very well be onto something there. I did think this was unusually clumsy politically by Call me Dave's standards.

Let's follow that thought.

Obama is on flimsy ground at home these days. He drew his line in the sand, and now its been crossed. He has to do SOMETHING, or look weak, both abroad and at home. So Obama's first logical step is turn his 'line' into him leading an international humanitarian intervention. That makes him look like a world leader, and shifts the blame from any trouble away from his shoulders and onto a more general front.

So Obama along with Francois Hollande, who is desperate to do something to boost his poll ratings (being the most unpopular French President ever at this stage), both are leaning on Mr Cameron. Cameron has no real dog in this fight with Syria. His election focus at the moment is on the domestic front, and he's already got Libya under his belt, He doesn't actually NEED a foreign intervention policy success. It's all risk and no gain for him. Not only will it strain his budget, he risks getting sucked into Afghanistan 2. At the same time though, he needs to show willing. Not only is it featuring heavily in the headlines lately, but international pressure is being applied to him and Hague by our erstwhile allies.

So. In that position, what's the best move?

Delegate it to parliament of course. Pick the worst possible moment, word it strongly but obliquely to get people's backs up, and watch it crash and burn. You'll note that Cameron actually didn't even employ a three line whip. That means that either he was struck by a blast of democratic conscience (unlikely), he didn't really care (unlikely considering he recalled Parliament early), or he wanted to lose. It would also explain why the Tory MP's shot down Milibands more reasonable amendment for potential action later on.

Then not only have you avoided a potentially disastrous and expensive foreign entanglement, you can hold up your hands and say 'I did my best! See! I even recalled Parliament!' to your allies. After that, you can even use it as a plus point on the election trail in six months to demonstrate how you listen to 'the will of the people'.


.....if that's what he's just done, I am genuinely in awe of that mans political savvy. I thought this was uncharacteristic of his usual operating methods. And taking that angle explains a LOT of loose/strange ends.

EDIT:-




That is not a man who was defeated on a very important vote.

In the interview afterwards, the Defence Secretary also focused on how they weren't going to do a Labour on Iraq, and lie and force through a war (Like Miliband did when part of Tony Blairs cabinet). But instead they're 'listening to the electorate'.

So they're taking a little egg from Milliband now to stock up attack points for the next election to boot.


I am genuinely gobsmacked. I had no idea my Government was this politically capable.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').

If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.

Maybe that was his intent?

.....you are a dangerous man, Frazzled. I hadn't even considered that possibility. You may very well be onto something there. I did think this was unusually clumsy politically by Call me Dave's standards.

Let's follow that thought.

Obama is on flimsy ground at home these days. He drew his line in the sand, and now its been crossed. He has to do SOMETHING, or look weak, both abroad and at home. So Obama's first logical step is turn his 'line' into him leading an international humanitarian intervention. That makes him look like a world leader, and shifts the blame from any trouble away from his shoulders and onto a more general front.

So Obama along with Francois Hollande, who is desperate to do something to boost his poll ratings (being the most unpopular French President ever at this stage), both are leaning on Mr Cameron. Cameron has no real dog in this fight with Syria. His election focus at the moment is on the domestic front, and he's already got Libya under his belt, He doesn't actually NEED a foreign intervention policy success. It's all risk and no gain for him. Not only will it strain his budget, he risks getting sucked into Afghanistan 2. At the same time though, he needs to show willing. Not only is it featuring heavily in the headlines lately, but international pressure is being applied to him and Hague by our erstwhile allies.

So. In that position, what's the best move?

Delegate it to parliament of course. Pick the worst possible moment, word it strongly but obliquely to get people's backs up, and watch it crash and burn. You'll note that Cameron actually didn't even employ a three line whip. That means that either he was struck by a blast of democratic conscience (unlikely), he didn't really care (unlikely considering he recalled Parliament early), or he wanted to lose. It would also explain why the Tory MP's shot down Milibands more reasonable amendment for potential action later on.

Then not only have you avoided a potentially disastrous and expensive foreign entanglement, you can hold up your hands and say 'I did my best! See! I even recalled Parliament!' to your allies. After that, you can even use it as a plus point on the election trail in six months to demonstrate how you listen to 'the will of the people'.


.....if that's what he's just done, I am genuinely in awe of that mans political savvy. I thought this was uncharacteristic of his usual operating methods. And taking that angle explains a LOT of loose/strange ends.

EDIT:-




That is not a man who was defeated on a very important vote.

In the interview afterwards, the Defence Secretary also focused on how they weren't going to do a Labour on Iraq, and lie and force through a war (Like Miliband did when part of Tony Blairs cabinet). But instead they're 'listening to the electorate'.

So they're taking a little egg from Milliband now to stock up attack points for the next election to boot.


I am genuinely gobsmacked. I had no idea my Government was this politically capable.

You must be talking about another David Cameron

I think you're reading too much into this and giving Cameron credit for something that was unintentional. Cameron expected to win this vote, the fact that there was only 13 votes in it is testament to that fact. He knew it would be close, but calculated that political backing from Parliament would give him the legitimacy he craved and be able to score one over Labour. He miscalculated, he lost. That sound you can hear is a political bandwagon doing a massive U-turn!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.

Not at all. I'd simply like your government to shut up once it's decided it's not going to do anything.

Well, good luck getting bogged down in another Middle East adventure. If you want a do's and don't guide to getting involved in the Middle East, there are plenty of books about the British Empire I can direct you too. Personally, I'm glad Britain has pulled the plug on her token involvement, and hope that the USA comes to it's sense and decided not to get involved. But Obama has painted himself into a corner with his red line talk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
We're not getting involved it seems. And to be frank, I'm not surprised even slightly. Cameron seriously missed the political step on this one. He recalled Parliament before the UN report was in, and asked for a blank cheque with regards to what military action he could take (under the phrase 'military intervention').

If he'd waited a few days for the UN report and specified exactly what he had planned, he would have gotten the support he needed from Parliament. He slipped up though. So we'll be sitting this one out.

Maybe that was his intent?

Cameron is as much a serious politician as I am a Texan! The guy is nothing more than an over-promoted PR man who has been lucky that his family are rich and influential enough to have opened the right doors for him since he was a teenager.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.

Not at all. I'd simply like your government to shut up once it's decided it's not going to do anything.

Just like yours right?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You must be talking about another David Cameron

I think you're reading too much into this and giving Cameron credit for something that was unintentional. Cameron expected to win this vote, the fact that there was only 13 votes in it is testament to that fact. He knew it would be close, but calculated that political backing from Parliament would give him the legitimacy he craved and be able to score one over Labour. He miscalculated, he lost. That sound you can hear is a political bandwagon doing a massive U-turn!
.......

Cameron is as much a serious politician as I am a Texan! The guy is nothing more than an over-promoted PR man who has been lucky that his family are rich and influential enough to have opened the right doors for him since he was a teenager.

I think you underestimate him substantially. Nobody gets to be Prime Minister by virtue of being rich. You need to be at the very least politically savvy enough to smack down all your potential competition for head spot in your party, and then get a large enough majority to get your way in Parliament. Stupid people are not capable of that. As to the PR Man comment, well, anyone can be a PR man. Question is, can they be a good PR man? Again, to be a good one requires a certain amount of brains.

This man made it through the backstabbing internal politics of the Conservative Party and became its leader. Don't be foolish enough to dismiss him as an idiot. Even Miliband (who's twice as gormless) isn't a stupid man.

Regardless, think about it. If this vote was important for Cameron, why was a triple whip not imposed? If Cameron was desperate to intervene, why did the Tory MP's oppose Miliband's motion for a reconsideration later on? Surely if Cameron wanted to intervene so badly, he would have seized the chance to look at it again in a few weeks?

That highlights another oddity. Why recall Parliament exactly four days early when the UN report was due in another three? If one wanted to declare war on Syria or instigate armed intervention, your hand would be greatly strengthened by such a report (it could be spun several ways whatever it said). So why not wait the three days to increase your odds?

And on that note, look at the margin. Just a few seats between passing and failing. 13 to be precise. That means that some of the Tories voted against it. How hard would it be to take some of your backbenchers aside just before and ask them to vote against? But not so many that it looks overly bad for you. If you lost by too many votes (50+), it would look really bad for you. But to have failed by the slimmest of majorities, well, that looks like practically half the house agrees with you!

And I repeat again, no triple whip was used. For something important enough to recall Parliament four days early for, surely that's a little strange? One would think that if something is of enough magnitude to ship everyone back from holiday, it would be important enough to ensure the Government passes its motion.

As to a massive U-Turn, is it really? Watch the clip I posted. Then go and watch the Defence Secretary's interview. It strikes me as being very carefully written. Not something that was just spun out on the hoof to cover a defeat. I've seen them beaten before, and they weren't nearly as smooth as this.


Too much simply doesn't add up. I would bet 90% Cameron wanted to lose this vote. Nothing to gain whatsoever for him in winning it except potentially Iraq take 2. The man is far more cunning than I ever gave him credit for. I knew he was a decent politician and a fairly smooth operator. But this took quite some skill to set up.

A gfew token cruise missiles and a few token air raids and the U.S. involvement in Syria will be over. All Obama needs to do is show that crossing the "Red Line" has some price.

Does this really feel like Armageddon to anyone?

 Soladrin wrote:
Just like yours right?

We're generally not in the habit of demanding our NATO allies take military action while we sit around crocheting, so I'd say yes.

It's an especially confusing denial for the British given the farcical face-saving nature of the whole thing. We're not going into Syria. We're going to shoot some Tomahawks at abandoned bus stations and go home and hope that everyone thinks that means we back our ultimatums up. The Brits could just show up in the form of one boat full of North Sea fishermen and claim involvement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775

France however seems to be still 'All In'.



As far as ratcheting things up goes... in the wake of the UKs decision, Syria has started using Napalm on children instead of poison gas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

BBC wrote:
Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'


29 August 2013 Last updated at 17:43 ET Help

A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.

Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
You seem to have a serious axe to grind, Seaward.

Not at all. I'd simply like your government to shut up once it's decided it's not going to do anything.

Just like yours right?

I don't think the current President ever shuts up...ever...

Im glad Britain has decided to not go along on this foray. The U.S. has no business in Syria, or Libya, or Iraq or Iran....

Syria in particular. Neither side likes us, we have nothing to gain in that area. It's a civil war between two belligerents hostile to the US. I understand the "Responsibility to Protect", but why do we have to be the world's policeman, and after we act, get called the world's villain? Let the world stew.....

I just find it funny that:

Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.

One must wonder what the next escalation will be.

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." - John Stuart Mill, inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You must be talking about another David Cameron

I think you're reading too much into this and giving Cameron credit for something that was unintentional. Cameron expected to win this vote, the fact that there was only 13 votes in it is testament to that fact. He knew it would be close, but calculated that political backing from Parliament would give him the legitimacy he craved and be able to score one over Labour. He miscalculated, he lost. That sound you can hear is a political bandwagon doing a massive U-turn!
.......

Cameron is as much a serious politician as I am a Texan! The guy is nothing more than an over-promoted PR man who has been lucky that his family are rich and influential enough to have opened the right doors for him since he was a teenager.

I think you underestimate him substantially. Nobody gets to be Prime Minister by virtue of being rich. You need to be at the very least politically savvy enough to smack down all your potential competition for head spot in your party, and then get a large enough majority to get your way in Parliament. Stupid people are not capable of that. As to the PR Man comment, well, anyone can be a PR man. Question is, can they be a good PR man? Again, to be a good one requires a certain amount of brains.

This man made it through the backstabbing internal politics of the Conservative Party and became its leader. Don't be foolish enough to dismiss him as an idiot. Even Miliband (who's twice as gormless) isn't a stupid man.

Regardless, think about it. If this vote was important for Cameron, why was a triple whip not imposed? If Cameron was desperate to intervene, why did the Tory MP's oppose Miliband's motion for a reconsideration later on? Surely if Cameron wanted to intervene so badly, he would have seized the chance to look at it again in a few weeks?

That highlights another oddity. Why recall Parliament exactly four days early when the UN report was due in another three? If one wanted to declare war on Syria or instigate armed intervention, your hand would be greatly strengthened by such a report (it could be spun several ways whatever it said). So why not wait the three days to increase your odds?

And on that note, look at the margin. Just a few seats between passing and failing. 13 to be precise. That means that some of the Tories voted against it. How hard would it be to take some of your backbenchers aside just before and ask them to vote against? But not so many that it looks overly bad for you. If you lost by too many votes (50+), it would look really bad for you. But to have failed by the slimmest of majorities, well, that looks like practically half the house agrees with you!

And I repeat again, no triple whip was used. For something important enough to recall Parliament four days early for, surely that's a little strange? One would think that if something is of enough magnitude to ship everyone back from holiday, it would be important enough to ensure the Government passes its motion.

As to a massive U-Turn, is it really? Watch the clip I posted. Then go and watch the Defence Secretary's interview. It strikes me as being very carefully written. Not something that was just spun out on the hoof to cover a defeat. I've seen them beaten before, and they weren't nearly as smooth as this.


Too much simply doesn't add up. I would bet 90% Cameron wanted to lose this vote. Nothing to gain whatsoever for him in winning it except potentially Iraq take 2. The man is far more cunning than I ever gave him credit for. I knew he was a decent politician and a fairly smooth operator. But this took quite some skill to set up.

Cameron has been humiliated on the world stage. Last week he promised he would stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA concerning military action. This week, he's been forced to hand back the deputy sheriff's badge!

Some facts (from the Daily Mail ) to counter your argument:

Prime Minister humiliated in the Commons after losing by just 13 votes
8 ministers, 2 whips and 2 ministerial aides failed to turn up
Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds claim division bell didn't sound
But Commons officials hit back and say all the bells have been tested
Chief whip Sir George Young faces the sack in expected reshuffle
Britain faces 'soul-searching' about role in the world, says George Osborne.

You would have us believe that Cameron's tactics are on a level with Bismarck's manipulation of the French. Not so. Cameron's policy has been a shambles from top to bottom.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Im glad Britain has decided to not go along on this foray. The U.S. has no business in Syria, or Libya, or Iraq or Iran....

Syria in particular. Neither side likes us, we have nothing to gain in that area. It's a civil war between two belligerents hostile to the US. I understand the "Responsibility to Protect", but why do we have to be the world's policeman, and after we act, get called the world's villain? Let the world stew.....

Wise words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I just find it funny that:

Cowboy President got more countries (and congressional approval to boot) for Iraq and Afganistan... and yet,
Mr. Nobel Peace President is having a hard time garning support.

I think it was Condi hitting people with the handbag that got people falling into line behind GW

I'm gonna be honest, I don't generally consider headlines from the Daily Fail to be admissible as a serious counter-argument.

But eh. You seem pretty set in your mode of thinking, so I won't waste both of our time trying to discuss it further.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775

France however seems to be still 'All In'.



As far as ratcheting things up goes... in the wake of the UKs decision, Syria has started using Napalm on children instead of poison gas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

BBC wrote:
Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims 'like the walking dead'


29 August 2013 Last updated at 17:43 ET Help

A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident - an incendiary bomb dropped on to a school playground in the north of the country - which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.

Eyewitnesses describe a fighter jet dropping the device, a low explosion, followed by columns of fire and smoke.

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway's report contains images viewers may find extremely distressing.

The US military dropped plenty of nasty stuff on Vietnamese civilians. This is not a historical points scoring game, but no country can criticise another for doing things said country has also done.

Gotta give Parliament credit due to the fact that they gathered over the issue while our Congress continues to sip Mai Tais and let the war drums beat to the only discussion being carried by the media talking heads and demagogues.

I do find it interesting that the UK has supported us through numerous conflicts (and deserves our respect for it), but now they back off and other European countries are following suit. Definitely something for me to take into consideration with this issue.