People Around the World Oppose Arming Syrian "Rebels"

[Texas_tea]

Don't put anything past us....lol

How did their appeasement work out for the Rhine?

 

[Aus22]

Texas, You might be please to Know The Australian Prime Minister said he might interfere in Syrian if the latest claim of the Syrian government using chemical weapons can be proved.

 

[Aus22]

The problem is that small countries in Europe and Australia might support aiding the Syrian rebels they can not have much effect without American support.

 

[dogtowner]

The problem is that small countries in Europe and Australia might support aiding the Syrian rebels they can not have much effect without American support.

why ? yall can do what you please. or perhaps by support you mean $ ?

you guys have plenty of cash for AKs and chinese arms

 

[Texas_tea]

why ? yall can do what you please. or perhaps by support you mean $ ?

you guys have plenty of cash for AKs and chinese arms

Yes ....

And the ignorance to back it up .... just look at what the rational thinking people of Australia are saying ...

 

[Aus22]

It has been proved in Libya that without such things as refuelling aircraft, European countries can not do much .I AM NOT SURE IF Australia can do much more except through the Un. We are now members of the Security Council

 

[dogtowner]

It has been proved in Libya that without such things as refuelling aircraft, European countries can not do much .I AM NOT SURE IF Australia can do much more except through the Un. We are now members of the Security Council

the us is not the only nation with such hardware. I would be surprised if Australia had none.

 

[Aus22]

Australia and most European countries fight in their own region. Unlike The USA which often flies planes from outside the region. They have developed mid air refuelling systems. Europe and Australia does not have this facility and no bases near Syria.

I do not propose that the USA intervenes in Syria as do 70% of Americans. They however can take action through the UN. like allowing UN observers to investigate the chemical attacks. Australia will be president of the UN Security Council next week and whatever party wins the election. will try to solve the Syrian war through this body.

 

[dogtowner]

Australia and most European countries fight in their own region. Unlike The USA which often flies planes from outside the region. They have developed mid air refuelling systems. Europe and Australia does not have this facility and no bases near Syria.

I do not propose that the USA intervenes in Syria as do 70% of Americans. They however can take action through the UN. like allowing UN observers to investigate the chemical attacks. Australia will be president of the UN Security Council next week and whatever party wins the election. will try to solve the Syrian war through this body.

Good luck to them. No small task.

 

[BigRob]

Australia and most European countries fight in their own region. Unlike The USA which often flies planes from outside the region. They have developed mid air refuelling systems. Europe and Australia does not have this facility and no bases near Syria.

I do not propose that the USA intervenes in Syria as do 70% of Americans. They however can take action through the UN. like allowing UN observers to investigate the chemical attacks. Australia will be president of the UN Security Council next week and whatever party wins the election. will try to solve the Syrian war through this body.

Are you serious? Australia has ZERO authority on the UNSC. The only five that matter are the five with veto power. And to think anything is going to be done through the UN while Russia (one of those veto five) continue to back Assad is the pinnacle of delusion.

 

[Aus22]

Yes Big Rob . I know Australia is not a permanent member of the Security Council and has no veto. But they are a member and has the Presidency this week. They can help the Five Permanent members negotiate. I do not believe we should intervene in Syria unless we have Un approval. Russia may veto but there is a precedence for taking action on humanity grounds.

 

[Texas_tea]

Russia may veto but there is a precedence for taking action on humanity grounds.

Really ... and just who is suppose to take this action ...

 

[dogtowner]

Yes Big Rob . I know Australia is not a permanent member of the Security Council and has no veto. But they are a member and has the Presidency this week. They can help the Five Permanent members negotiate. I do not believe we should intervene in Syria unless we have Un approval. Russia may veto but there is a precedence for taking action on humanity grounds.

there is also a sad precedence for inhumane meted out by UN peacekeepers.
actually the only sort of thing that makes sense is peacekeepers keeping peace. trouble is only Assad is interested in that and those most invested in the situation think he's just a meanie and want him dead. Thats the conundrum here.

 

[BigRob]

Yes Big Rob . I know Australia is not a permanent member of the Security Council and has no veto. But they are a member and has the Presidency this week. They can help the Five Permanent members negotiate. I do not believe we should intervene in Syria unless we have Un approval. Russia may veto but there is a precedence for taking action on humanity grounds.

Yes there is a precedence for taking action on humanitarian grounds...sometimes. But its naive to think Russia is going to just sit back and say great, go for it when they have other interests at stake here.

UN approval is nice if its easy for an air of legitimacy, but you can get the same thing via NATO (or some other body, remember it was the OAS that Kennedy used for legitimacy to blockade Cuba -- and I'm not saying he will get anything via them this go around), and you don't really need it anyway, its just nice to have.

 

[Cruella]

I thought Russia and China walked out.