So it looks like we may be going into Syria (?)

[Aquitaine]

With the recent developments regarding Syria, like the claims of chemical weapons use, do you reckon the US and UK at least may be heading over there sometime soon?

Also, assuming force was used against Assad, what are your thoughts on it?

 

[esmith]

Dammed if you do dammed if you don't. Expect this to be only stand-off strikes if action is taken.

 

[Awoon]

With the recent developments regarding Syria, like the claims of chemical weapons use, do you reckon the US and UK at least may be heading over there sometime soon?

Also, assuming force was used against Assad, what are your thoughts on it?

Take over the country and ban religion from it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

With the recent developments regarding Syria, like the claims of chemical weapons use, do you reckon the US and UK at least may be heading over there sometime soon?

Also, assuming force was used against Assad, what are your thoughts on it?

For what it's worth, you can probably add some form of direct support from Australia into the mix, although I'm reading between the lines a little.

Caution needed in considering intervention in Syria - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[Aquitaine]

For what it's worth, you can probably add some form of direct support from Australia into the mix, although I'm reading between the lines a little.

Caution needed in considering intervention in Syria - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Seriously, even Australia? What is it with all this obsession over Syrian intervention? Why can't we foreigners just stay out of their business; their civil war?

 

[Curious George]

Seriously, even Australia? What is it with all this obsession over Syrian intervention? Why can't we foreigners just stay out of their business; their civil war?

One word: globalization.

 

[Aquitaine]

One word: globalization.

Good point.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ignoring civil wars isn't exactly a solution either.

It saddens me to see that people rarely even remember that existence of the UNO or of diplomatic channels anymore, though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

One word: globalization.

Not really. We've had our lips firmly planted on the backside of the US military since the second half of WW2. And there are some pretty good reasons for it, which is NOT the same as saying I support us entering Syria. I'm simply saying that from a military point of view, supporting the US is sensible.

It's not a new thing, and I don't think it's related to globalisation. For one thing, we still spell that word with an 's'.
lol

 

[Assad91]

I am against all intervention

 

[Aquitaine]

I am against all intervention

For once, we're in agreement.

 

[Aquitaine]

Ignoring civil wars isn't exactly a solution either.

It saddens me to see that people rarely even remember that existence of the UNO or of diplomatic channels anymore, though.

What would you suggest?

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Ignoring civil wars isn't exactly a solution either.

It saddens me to see that people rarely even remember that existence of the UNO or of diplomatic channels anymore, though.

I think at this point we are beyond any sort of intervention.

Assad is a madman and he most likely won't listen to reason, not to mention a dictator being propped up by Russia and Iran in a proxy war against the US.

Besides, Syria under Assad is a threat to Israel. He should be removed as Saddam and Qaddafi were, and hopefully the Ayatollahs will be.

 

[Curious George]

Not really. We've had our lips firmly planted on the backside of the US military since the second half of WW2. And there are some pretty good reasons for it, which is NOT the same as saying I support us entering Syria. I'm simply saying that from a military point of view, supporting the US is sensible.

It's not a new thing, and I don't think it's related to globalisation. For one thing, we still spell that word with an 's'.
lol

Perhaps, you don't understand the term.

 

[Breathe]

I am against all intervention

^ Me too.

With the recent developments regarding Syria, like the claims of chemical weapons use, do you reckon the US and UK at least may be heading over there sometime soon?

Also, assuming force was used against Assad, what are your thoughts on it?

Cameron, Mr "We need to cut money everywhere especially against the poor, sick, vulnerable and the working class", thinks going to war with another country is a good idea?

How, exactly, is it going to improve our relationship with other countries who don't support it, with the Middle East in general?

And how is it going to do anything other than put us in even more debt?!

Cameron should be removed from office immediately. I hate that man.

 

[Leftimies]

I am skeptical of EU involvement in any intervention. Any intervention would be only with Russia's blessing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps, you don't understand the term.

I do, although I tend to think of it more in economic terms than strategic ones, to be honest.
China is by far our most important trading partner, and Asia far more important than 'traditional' markets like US and Europe. But, the US is still an important economic partner.
But the crux of the relationship between the US and Australia is strategic. And our support in wars around the globe, and in providing military facilities in strategically important locations is more to bolster an alliance we rely on for local security needs (as in Asia-Pac).

In some ways economic globalisation is about the largest 'threat' to what has been a very strong US -> Australia military alliance.

 

[Assad91]

I think at this point we are beyond any sort of intervention.

Assad is a madman and he most likely won't listen to reason, not to mention a dictator being propped up by Russia and Iran in a proxy war against the US.

Besides, Syria under Assad is a threat to Israel. He should be removed as Saddam and Qaddafi were, and hopefully the Ayatollahs will be.

Lol a dictator propped up by Russia and Iran.

Better than being a dictator propped up by America and Israel. At least he give complete tolerance of religion, unlike the Saudi Kings.

Oh, and I doubt the Ayatollahs will ever be gone from Iran. The west messed that up when their propped up Shah was overthrown.

 

[Assad91]

For once, we're in agreement.

Hip-hip-hooray?

 

[NicholaiHel]

Strategically, Assad needs to fall to curtail the rising power of Shia Islam in the Middle east. Also, the Russian, Iranian, Syrian bloc is a thorn in the US's side as they are competing interests within OPEC and against the US. Assad needs to fall if the US is going to continue to increase their hegemonic influence within the region. Iran's time will come.

Ok, now that my little synopsis is done I'm going to shake off that state of mind and move back to Zen. I detest this foreign policy, however, it is what's occurring.