leicsmac

I hope not, but given the possible trajectory of things, who knows?

Yeah, Truman and his "domino theory" that people like Dulles ran with and Johnson acted upon has rather a lot to answer for.

Favours from the Americans, most likely. I'm curious to know if there was another reason.

Think that would depend on whether you get the occasional Elliot Ness or Tommy Butler type in there who aren't interested in career progression but are fanatically devoted to the job they're doing even though it's unglamorous, I reckon.

Genuinely curious: does it have the desired effect of reducing corruption, though?

Doesn't stop the usual suspects in the press and otherwise from taking it and running with it for their own gain, though.

...or we can simply let the Mauritians hold on to it as they originally did, and not buy into a puerile idea of the world being a realpolitik board game where the light side or the dark side has to control all the pieces and squares. NB. For all their considerable domestic sins, I'm not sure how many military bases and "blacksites" the Chinese have outside their direct territory, but I'd hazard a guess that it's less than the powers that decide to oppose them do (mostly American). That is of course not a endorsement of them having one more, rather just pointing out, again, how ridiculous the whole mindset is.

On this topic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o Looks like a bit of both here then: the UK lets go of the islands generally, but the CIA keeps its "enhanced interrogation" site.

And to add to this, that she gets ridiculous money in royalties every year from a song that, even as a Christmas pop effort, is mediocre at best. Underneath The Tree by Kelly Clarkson, to say but one, is a much better effort in that genre.

Tbf the UK shouldn't be holding on to the Chagos Islands and having it used as a CIA deniable funhouse anyway.

Yeah, this is the reality of a total and of an asymmetric war. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's the lie being sold across differing forms of media that what is happening is "clean" and in some twisted way compassionate towards the civilians on the other side, and the total absolution of any kind of responsibility for those civilian bodies, that sticks in the craw the most. The sheer lack of honesty of purpose is staggering. But then, "The first casualty of war is the truth" and all that.

To be honest, I think at this stage and knowing something about the numbers it's a semantic discussion anyway - the truth is that there is a vastly disproportionate level of civilian casualties on each side in this particular matter since it began, of the order of at least 10:1.

Another (rather jokey and lesser) example of suffering being held up as some badge of honour or necessary rite of passage. Perplexing.

That seems pretty accurate to me. Here's hoping we don't have to find out.

There's other pieces, too. It's just rather ridiculous to me that they'd come down on the one side just because it's the done thing. It's like that bit in Good Omens where Aziraphale says to Gabriel "There doesn't have to be a war!" and Gabriel looks at him like he's stupid and replies "Of course there does! Otherwise how would we win it?"

And good to see the "establishment" press still favour escalation and likely all-out war, then. Must sell papers and clicks.

The US are on record as saying that Israel are on their own if they do this. Of course, off record may be different.

And they didn't even twist your arm a little by getting you to admit that these storms are driven to be more frequent and extreme by the climate change you deny before offering the dough, Matt.

Agreed. If they seek pariahdom in the name of "doing the right thing", then that wish should be respected. There's quite a few other pariah states.

Anyone else thinking that banning the head of the organisation designed to represent equally diplomatic relationships and greater understanding between nations isn't the best look for Tel Aviv?

Worth watching for the expression Vance made when he got fact checked about his Springfield BS, tbh.

To expand: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y0863ry88o Seems like it finished about a score draw, Vance the more polished speaker but Walz drew blood in a few places. NB. Vance's face when the moderator fact checked him on Springfield, Ohio should be a meme.

Other way round, mon ami. That seems pretty self-evident, given their interactions when he was in the Oval Office last time.

What with Nightsleeper and now this, the Beeb are missing too often with their dramas right now. Which is a shame because they've made some very good ones recently too (The Tourist, Happy Valley, Time and others).

... does anyone actually believe that, or that it will happen without giving Putin everything he wants?