Sentences with phrase «threats of military action»

Trump appeared to walk back his threats of military action against Syria, tweeting that an attack could happen «very soon» or «not so soon at all.»

Tweeter in Chief: Despite his pronouncements that he would never publicly telegraph military plans, President Trump's threats of military action against Syria may have already triggered a response from adversaries.

He has since sought to dial back threats of military action, saying missile strikes into Syria may not happen soon.

If the summit fails to conclude in an agreement, that could be seen as a failure of diplomacy and, in turn, may heighten the threat of military action.

Trump's tweet carried an implied threat of military action — not an explicit statement of intent.

Not exact matches

on Premier's News Hour, he said: «The way in which we conduct any military action in Iraq, I think, should be on a humanitarian basis to protect people, not on the basis of fear and threat to the UK.»

Assad turned over stockpiles of weapons from a program he never admitted existed before, because of the threat of NATO military action.

The Cold War required a military build up, on threat of nuclear war which was still believed to be winnable, and was punctuated with full fledged wars / military actions such as the Korean War and Vietnam War.

David Cameron has said ISIS poses a threat to British security and that military action is just one part of a wider strategy to defeat them.

That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an «unprecedented threat to international peace and security» and calls on states to take «all necessary measures» to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to «eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria»; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government's continued determination to cut ISIL's sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK's particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government's commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

The Labour leader said: «Whether it's the lack of a strategy worth the name, the absence of credible ground troops, the missing diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement, the failure to address the impact on the terrorist threat, or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties, it's become increasingly clear that the prime minister's proposals for military action simply do not stack up.»

As I type the Twitter and Facebook pages of those MPs who supported military action are continuing to fill up with grotesque images, vile abuse and threats of deselection.

Does the threat of military force by the United States have much of an influence on other countries» actions?

Off the top of my mind, (1) «a very large military» is not necessarily good at fighting vs. rebels; air strikes won't «destroy»; they can only accompany ground invasion; (2) ground strike means attacker's losses; (3) invasion must be justified, no threat to Turkey yet; (4) a NATO member should agree its actions with the NATO HQ; (5) Kurds are considered a bigger threat for Turkey; (6) Turkey may not want help Assad's who has killed 10 times more civ's than ISIS

«Chief of Army Staff, General Buratai and his military hierarchy are desperately using every and any available strategy to justify their actions against IPOB family members in Biafraland particularly in Anambra State because of our boycott threat.

However, its action and handling of its informants is a threat to its operations» success as the signal shows that many are likely to think twice in engaging the military should they stumble on intelligence that is capable of winning our wars for us.

«That this house notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an «unprecedented threat to international peace and security» and calls on states to take «all necessary measures» to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to «eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria»; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government's continued determination to cut ISIL's sources of finance, fighters, and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian causalities; using the UK's particular capabilities; notes the Government's will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government's commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces.»

Another danger of such an approach of using military strikes to promote a political solution is that it will be very difficult to get the balance right between the threat of continuing and escalating military action against the regime and shifting the balance of power just enough to create incentives on both sides to negotiate.

The White House has correctly argued that the cred - ble threat of US military action helped to loosen diplomatic gridlock over Syria.

The biggest flaw in the neocon approach is the hypocrisy of applying the precautionary principle to spend trillions of dollars responding to «best available» military intelligence, but posturing to insist on 110 % certainty when it comes to taking action to avert possible environmental threats.

I have a sort of mental chart with lots of arrows: actions that produce GHGs (e.g., coal - burning) causing a plethora of problems (& goods — like power), acid rain, ocean acidification, local ground, air, water pollution, GW, health problems & dangers for miners, military threats / expenses (according to Pentagon studies re oil), etc.; and also many arrows of good (some bad) coming out of measures to abate GW.

if it were being done deliberately everyone would understand the danger — if North Korea had a battery of factories deliberately pumping millions of tons of sulfur hexafluoride into the atmosphere, the strongest known greenhouse gas, people would immediately understand the threat to the extent that there would be calls for military action against NK.

Most aviation companies are committed to assuring that: All recruiting, hiring, training, promotion, compensation, and other employment related programs are provided fairly to all persons on an equal opportunity basis without regard to race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, military and veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status or any other characteristic protected by law; Employment decisions are based on the principles of equal opportunity and affirmative action; All personnel actions such as compensation, benefits, transfers, training, and participation in social and recreational programs are administered without regard to race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, disability, military and veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status or any other characteristic protected by law, and; Employees and applicants will not be subjected to harassment, intimidation, threats, coercion or discrimination because they have exercised any right protected by law.