Comments like that are a worry. Are you wearing your brown shirt and practicing the goose step too.

That's your second Godwin, I let you off with your first, but now you lose.

Syria has a right to attack "Israel" for it interfering with their nasty beak.

Syria will NEVER (well unless they completely abandon anything that resembles common sense) attack Israel. It's pretty straight forward, Syria remembers June 1967, and they know the same thing will happen.

Comments like that are a worry. Are you wearing your brown shirt and practicing the goose step too.

You are the worry, incapable of separating humour from fact. And apart from that, totally boring by bringing up the Nazi card at the drop of a hat. Grow up.

If on the other hand you are trying your best to insult me, you will have to do far better than that, I have been insulted by experts, and you are not even vaguely in their class. And they do not have to invoke Godwin's Law to make a point. All of which makes you very predictable.

Syria will NEVER (well unless they completely abandon anything that resembles common sense) attack Israel. It's pretty straight forward, Syria remembers June 1967, and they know the same thing will happen.

I didn't say they will, just that they have a right to, after "Israel" involved itself.

But ALL sides are just as bad as each other in the Middle East.

Their will NEVER be peace in the Middle East for a very, very long time, if ever.

That's your second Godwin, I let you off with your first, but now you lose.

Aaron . I am sorry that I've stooped to this level...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/frontpage-nazi-slur-against-pm-kevin-rudd-puts-rupert-murdoch-centre-stage-in-australian-election-8752968.html

Rosebud

Aaron . I am sorry that I've stooped to this level...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/frontpage-nazi-slur-against-pm-kevin-rudd-puts-rupert-murdoch-centre-stage-in-australian-election-8752968.html

Rosebud

So don't get satire at all do you my precious petal? I'll explain it because clearly you don't get it. It's a not a link between Rudd and the Nazi party, it's a link between the popular catch phrase of Sgt Shultz who used the line 'I know nothing' to cover his smeg when things happened that were his responsibility to report...

So don't get satire at all do you my precious petal? I'll explain it because clearly you don't get it. It's a not a link between Rudd and the Nazi party, it's a link between the popular catch phrase of Sgt Shultz who used the line 'I know nothing' to cover his smeg when things happened that were his responsibility to report...

OK you went to uni and watched Hogans Heros. For anyone who didn't

I'm sure if they ran the same with Abbott you'd be the first to lecture us about satire.

You are the worry, incapable of separating humour from fact. And apart from that, totally boring by bringing up the Nazi card at the drop of a hat. Grow up.

If on the other hand you are trying your best to insult me, you will have to do far better than that, I have been insulted by experts, and you are not even vaguely in their class. And they do not have to invoke Godwin's Law to make a point. All of which makes you very predictable.

Just continuing that tasteful humour but sorry that you were offended.

Surely you can do better than joking about shooting politicians you don't like. Seems enough wackos out there all too willing to oblige.

http://www.giffordsforcongress.com/

Just continuing that tasteful humour but sorry that you were offended.

Surely you can do better than joking about shooting politicians you don't like. Seems enough wackos out there all too willing to oblige.

http://www.giffordsforcongress.com/

Exactly, you just made my point.

Doesn't the US ever learn? It looks like it may put it's interfering beak alone to attack Syria.

The latest is the regime is moving its prisoners to military sights to use as human shields.

Russia is moving naval assets into the Med.

But the sharemarket managed to shakeoff the bad news today

Doesn't the US ever learn? It looks like it may put it's interfering beak alone to attack Syria.

I think that is about the fifth time you have used the word 'beak', and four times in a way that makes no sense.

OK you went to uni and watched Hogans Heros. For anyone who didn't

Wow! Being correct twice in one post, careful people might begin to think you've changed.

I'm sure if they ran the same with Abbott you'd be the first to lecture us about satire.

Oops! No, there it is, your normal broadcasting has resumed, thank god, I thought we'd lost you there.

For the record numerous cartoons and jokes have been written and made of conservatives, and no, I don't care at all, satire and other comedy is, what satire and other comedy will be. Complaining about it will only encourage.

BTW you gave away who you are behind your assumed nom de plume. See you around Stephen!

It's not surprising that the US would have evidence the regime was behind the chemical attacks since rockets are hard to hide once launched.

The practical military options are limited. Chemical stockpiles would be well dispersed. Best it can do is launch a few cruise missiles at military command and control locations. Unlikely it will be enough to destabilise the regime though and the slaughter will continue. Troops on the ground is the only way to stop it. Conservative regimes in Iran and North Korea will be looking on with interest.

If an American missile goes anywhere near the Russian Navy bases in Syria, expect a quick response in return.  i.e. A few missiles into US warships and WWIII.

The Yanks would be absolutely mad to get involved in Syria.  Seriously, utterly, totally bonkers.

At least the majority of the British Parliament had the brains to say no.

The US don't need to target Syria's chem weapons stores to be effective. They will be sending a strong political message by simply targeting rocket fuel stockpiles and other choice military targets.

The US won't target Russian naval hardware, they have no need to. Even if Russia felt threatened there would be no WWIII, Russia is barely viable enough to support it's civilian population and economy. It couldn't raise the money to fight a war with the US.

I think they should just let them sort it out amongst themselves, They have been fighting each other for Decades, And will continue to do so long after the dust has settled here

Kind Regards

Re: Russia's air force.

The French have more planes and the Dutch have more flying hours. This isn't the Radio Moscow and "This is Deutsche Welle from Bonn" era.

If an American missile goes anywhere near the Russian Navy bases in Syria, expect a quick response in return.  i.e. A few missiles into US warships and WWIII.

The Yanks would be absolutely mad to get involved in Syria.  Seriously, utterly, totally bonkers.

And from news reports Obama IS ready to attack Syria. Gee I thought Obama was better than George "War" Bush jnr. Leave THEIR conflict alone to SORT IT OUT THEMSELVES. Only if they attack the US should the US then get involved.

According to the news most protesters in Australia support the Syrian government, but even those that do not support the government don't want the US to interfere.

The US needs to learn that they are not the worlds' policeman.

Re: Russia's air force.

The French have more planes and the Dutch have more flying hours. This isn't the Radio Moscow and "This is Deutsche Welle from Bonn" era.

Russia won't get militarily involved. After all Soviet advisers were caught up in the 1967 and 1973 Arab/Israel wars and Vietnam yet those wars remained contained. Russia is more concerned about a destabilised Syria given its own problems with radical groups.

Is Assad's position so tenuous that US action will result in him stepping down or will he simply bunk down till the dust settles then pick up where he left off with a vengeance

At least Obama is doing one thing, unlike Bush jnr, and that is talking first, but the majority of the US residents are against getting involved in the Syrian war  - I heard last week sometime, that how much is the US responsible?

But IF he does take action (stupid him if he does, & no doubt McCain will be 100% behind him on that), he will have to wait until 9th September.

But I can't see how Obama can compare the Afghanistan & Iraq wars. Afghanistan (for the US ONLY) is a just war, the Iraq war is an unjust war - invading for oil.

Doesn't the US ever learn? It looks like it may put it's interfering beak alone to attack Syria.

The problem is when a country uses Chemical Weapons on its own people (if they have), its the duty of the UN to get involved. The UN's predessor (name escapes me) that was born after WW1 was in part brought about due to the heavy use of chemical weapons in the western front. Its ok to shoot, blow and mame people, but gasing them to death was a hard line they didn't want to cross again.

The only reason that the UN has nto got involved in Syria is because they see no winner. YEs they gave the rebels in Libya some support and encouraged a few others, but now the formerly stable parts of the middle east are a basket case and become more conservative. Not what they wanted.

I live currently in the middle east, the only way these guys can survive without fighting is strong hardline leadership. The benovalant royal rules of the GCC states is keeping them mostly stable apart from Bahrain. Jordon remembers Syria well and enjoys an economy much more affluent that if left alone should it retreat from its support of Israel and the USA, hence they are happy. But the non Royal leadership middle east countries are not doing so well and need again strong leadership/dictatorship as they are not ready for deomocracy. Islam is a very dictating/less flexible religon and I think this relfects what sort of governance they need.

I live currently in the middle east, the only way these guys can survive without fighting is strong hardline leadership. The benovalant royal rules of the GCC states is keeping them mostly stable apart from Bahrain. Jordon remembers Syria well and enjoys an economy much more affluent that if left alone should it retreat from its support of Israel and the USA, hence they are happy. But the non Royal leadership middle east countries are not doing so well and need again strong leadership/dictatorship as they are not ready for deomocracy. Islam is a very dictating/less flexible religon and I think this relfects what sort of governance they need.

Absolutely, you have hit the nail on the head, and it is well illustrated that after the US invaded Iraq and Hussein was ousted, the country fell apart. He may have been a murderous prick, but he kept the country together.

The UN's predessor (name escapes me)

The League of Nations (LN / SDN), 28 June 1919 - 20 April 1946, headquarters in Geneva.

the only way these guys can survive without fighting is strong hardline leadership

And the only way they can survive without being attacked in one way or another is to have a government that is "on board" with the US. Most of the strong hardline leaders are also Anglo-American puppets / clients / otherwise "on board", including the Arab monarchies.

Iran and Syria are not on board with the US. Gaddafi was not and he was eliminated. Saddam went rogue and his whole country was destroyed. The pattern is fairly clear.

...after the US invaded Iraq and Hussein was ousted, the country fell apart. He may have been a murderous prick, but he kept the country together.

Spot on. Morality to one side, Saddam was a buffoon, more interested in pursuing wealth and opulence than world domination. He didn't want the likes of Al Khidr destabilising his comfortable life.

Without too much trouble the US could have bought him off and use him as a bulwark against Iran and terrorist groups. After all look at how Gaddafi was being brought back into the league of civilised nations.
Instead they ended up spending much more in dollars and blood for what end. Dead is dead.