On 29/09/2016 at 7:08 PM, DogNo1 said:

Well, the rebels COULD lay down their arms and cooperate with the proper (Asaad's) government of Syria.  What is the real end game that the US has in mind?  The slaughter of Asaad and his present government along with all of the Russian spouses?  We've seen what's happened in the other counties.  The terrible decapitation through hanging of Saddam Hussein, the gruesome muder of Moammar Ghadaffi, etc.   Do we really expect the Syrian government and the Russians to just give up?  The know that they can expect no leniency if they lose.  It's obvious that the US wouldn't step in to make sure they were treated humanely.  Is it puzzling that they are fighting for their lives?

"What is the real end game that the US has in mind? "

And that, is the problem in Syria.  What is Washington's strategy ? Washington has been backing some of the rebels, Washington has been directly or in-directly backing the Al-Nusra Front and a few others.  Note that the Al-Nusra Front are actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria.  Washington is hoping that these groups will eventually remove Assad, but we all know Assad is not going to go. As long as Russia is supporting Assad, well, Assad will carry on.

If Washington can just pull out of Syria, and stop backing any of the rebels. And let Assad and Russia concentrate on removing ISIS in Syria. And then let Assad and Russia remove the other rebels, like the Al-Nusra Front. If Washington could simply just let Assad and Russia get on with it, then, the war in Syria will be finished at some point in time. But I don't think it's going to happen. Washington is in Syria for the long-term, Washington will carry on supporting whatever groups, and continue this war for years to come.

 

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"What is the real end game that the US has in mind? "

And that, is the problem in Syria.  What is Washington's strategy ? Washington has been backing some of the rebels, Washington has been directly or in-directly backing the Al-Nusra Front and a few others.  Note that the Al-Nusra Front are actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria.  Washington is hoping that these groups will eventually remove Assad, but we all know Assad is not going to go. As long as Russia is supporting Assad, well, Assad will carry on.

If Washington can just pull out of Syria, and stop backing any of the rebels. And let Assad and Russia concentrate on removing ISIS in Syria. And then let Assad and Russia remove the other rebels, like the Al-Nusra Front. If Washington could simply just let Assad and Russia get on with it, then, the war in Syria will be finished at some point in time. But I don't think it's going to happen. Washington is in Syria for the long-term, Washington will carry on supporting whatever groups, and continue this war for years to come.

 

Sadly, as has been pointed out many times, even by Russia,  they are not bombing just IS. And not all rebels are IS affiliates.  This is a civil war. Started by a population tired of being ruled by a brutal dictator.  You do understand that,  right?

11 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

It is what it is. Law was enacted to enable compliance to the Laws of Warfare in the national interest, thereby, at least in the case of Oz, protecting operational military in / over Syria. Oz government enacted laws against refugees in contraction to international conventions to which it had ratified, don't recall anyone on this forum calling those laws 'ridiculous'.

 

laws that contradict signed international treaties are simply invalid.

2 hours ago, manarak said:

 

laws that contradict signed international treaties are simply invalid.

 

The view that "signed international treaties" take precedence to laws enacted by sovereign countries is interesting.

Obviously, not all countries in the world subscribe to this notion. Support for this point of view probably depends on specific circumstances (and, naturally - interests).

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Sadly, as has been pointed out many times, even by Russia,  they are not bombing just IS. And not all rebels are IS affiliates.  This is a civil war. Started by a population tired of being ruled by a brutal dictator.  You do understand that,  right?

 

to say that it a civil war is purely propaganda

 

1 hour ago, Asiantravel said:

 

to say that it a civil war is purely propaganda

 

To say it's not is trolling.

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

To say it's not is trolling.

 

this is too serious to accuse me of trolling. This is a proxy war soon to become full on World War if Barack Obama makes the wrong decision today. I just hope he's on the golf course and feeling in a less aggressive mood.Even some US generals warned last week and Mikhail Gorbachev this week there is only one outcome if they maintain this trajectory.

 

Exclusive: Obama, aides expected to weigh Syria military options on Friday

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-options-exclusiv-idUSKCN12D2B2

1 hour ago, Asiantravel said:

 

this is too serious to accuse me of trolling. This is a proxy war soon to become full on World War if Barack Obama makes the wrong decision today. I just hope he's on the golf course and feeling in a less aggressive mood.Even some US generals warned last week and Mikhail Gorbachev this week there is only one outcome if they maintain this trajectory.

 

Exclusive: Obama, aides expected to weigh Syria military options on Friday

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-options-exclusiv-idUSKCN12D2B2

Ok. Apologies.  But please do a Google search for "Syrian civil war". Amazing how many references there are. Too many to be called propaganda.

 

You seem to just blame the US. While many world leaders are blaming Putin. Gorbachev's speech could also be interpreted to be referencing Russia's actions. Like them backing out of the nuclear agreement.  Doing reports on tv saying the US is sharpening their nuclear missiles. And of course,  violating the territory of several sovereign nations.

 

I hope you can see both sides to this.