Now the Syria crisis has really begun to grow. But the real question is Will Australia have a roll and under what circumstances? While everybody is running around blaming the Assad government for a chemical weapons strike on their people with sketchy evidence, what will this bring? Should Australia blindly go where the US seems to be going again? The Assad government seems set on refusing access for the UN inspectors to ascertain what exactly occurred and who was responsible. This would seem to show that Assad government are to blame, but letÂ’s face it, can this be proven? Given that life seems extremely cheap in the Middle East, it is not a long stretch to wonder if this was a set up by opposing parties. Examples of such actions are from Taliban bombing their own people. Perhaps all should wait to find out what the toothless tiger (the UN) is going to recommend. Or should world leaders react now? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...meeting-on-syria/story-fn9qr68y-1226703274257 Rudd seems pretty fast to get out there and set Australia on a course, contacting all involved in the advent he can inject Australia into the situation. Does this sound like previous times? Howard did wait until the US asked but Rudd seems to want to get the front foot forward here. All without the evidence that the Assad Government has used chemical weapons. However, that is not to say chemical weapons where not used. How do Australian's think their government should react in the current situation?
I admit I cringed. I immediately though Kev was bigging himself up for the benefit of our electorate. On second thoughts.....actually on second thoughts I think he's STILL bigging himself up! The extract I heard on NewsRadio today sounded like Kev was rushing off the campaign trail so the UN Security Council could do its work more effectively. Okay the most charitable conclusion is that micro-manager Kev is at it again..... On the issue itself the permutations are probably a bit obvious. 1. If the Assad government did it then they would find it beneficial to keep UN inspectors out so that they could still peddle the view that the rebels did it. Of course no-one in their right mind would believe that. 2. If the Assad government didn't do it then they should rush the UN inspectors in so that the govt can be found innocent and the crap can then be thrown at the rebels. Even Russia is telling Assad to let them in now. But as for Australia - we have the obligation to do our bit on the Security Council but that's where it ends. I don't think even John Howard would have even let it cross his mind that we should send troops there - in any role.
How should we react? The Syrian heartache has been going on for quite some time now. Curiously, I`ve never heard Kevin Rudd mention the Syrian crisis, let alone identify it as a situation requiring,urgent action. I don`t believe it`s ethical, if it is the case, for Rudd to use the misery of Syria for his own political gain. No, I haven`t got a link to prove this suspicion, but I have learned to mistrust Kevin Rudd`s motives.
Well, I have to admit, his actions over this and the rhetoric sounds like classic Rudd, BUT that is my cynical side. I think he still puts himself above the electorate with this. BUT enough of that. Well that is a little simplistic, How does one tell who used chemicals unless you find the delivery system and can identify the protagonists. It is simple to say Assad is guilty by association because he does not let the inspectors in. Let's face it, the Iraq WMD was the same and look how that turned out. Fairness of the UN has been in question for some time, but the fact France, the UK and The US are prepared to act in contravention of the UN (as shown in Iraq) and they are the ones that seem to be calling for action. Apparently their concern was with the fact that the USSR and China was not allowed to be part of fact finding mission. I am not sure what Howard would have done, BUT he at least waited for request before action. Here we have clear example that Rudd would be very prepared to go. His drama of trying to portray this as a situation where Australia is part of the chief protagonists calling for justification is a bit rich. Wikileaks demonstrated what Rudd is about, he appears to be a militant government prepared to head to war at the drop of a hat with his comments about China. BUT Again, before anybody does anything, ascertaining the validity and responsibility of claims is the most important before military action is even considered.
Good points all the above. Government is in caretaker mode right now so I would imagine that would hinder any military expeditions. I'm not sure if carektaker mode is a convention or it is backed by legal precedent, still and all it would be monumentally stupid for us to commit anything other than a big frown and a number of tut-tuts right now.
I was expecting to open this thread and find a news story about Australia being behind the alleged chemical attacks.
Yes my cynical side does make me think this is some sort of point scoring from Rudd. BUT again I have no evidence of such, I just believe lessons of previous actions do not seem to be learnt by this government and Rudd seems to have a pre-disposition to war. Due entirely to the fact that there is no real evidence of anything of certainty, I think it is far too rich that Australia should be even considering joining anything but the hard frowning of the world over this. Things will be interesting. - - - Updated - - - Why???
A welcome distraction from sliding polls. I think Obama was reckless in calling this the red line. He has put himself in a difficult corner, will be interesting to see how this develops for him. We have to remember that the rebel forces are made up of some pretty ugly factions. Not entirely, but they are certainly the motivators. Perhaps this is why the world is a little reticent to go all Afghanistan on Syria. A conundrum no doubt. Innocent people being butchered by both sides in their quest for power. Don't worry world........ SUPER RUDD will save us !
We quickly forget about the rebel that was apparently cannibalising people. Now that will open me up to accusations of supporting the "bloody" and "repressive" (no argument on that one) Assad regime. It's a shame that we can't be informed as to the difficult realities in the Syrian conflict. It's far too easy to express condemnation of one side or the other without working through what is really happening and what the possible outcomes might be. What we don't need in Syria is yet another Islamist regime.
Rudd certainly wont have to make any decisions....he'll be gone in 9 days...and no...we shouldn't be in Syria...
Condemnation coming from the US would seem what Rudd has hung his hat on. Without the determination of the attack one would have to ask why Obama (who supposedly rather diplomacy) is so determined to act without any evidence of who is to blame. As life is pretty cheap and the fact that all is about the civilians who died, nothing at all about the rebels. One would have to ask, is this simply a ploy by the rebels? The US, France, UK and Australia are simply throwing blame on the Assad regime due to circumstances. It would appear to me the most level headed of the lot is the USSR who are demanding people wait for a determination from the UN security council. BUT hey, who cares. An incident occurred which is detested by western society who holds life in far higher regard and suddenly it is fair game to throw about the accusations. I agree Australia has NO reason to be considering anything of this...
On another thread, a container of sarin was found in the possession of the rebels (Syrian Islamists)...hhhmmm On another subject, an American politician stated that "America has a responsibility to protect..." Is that in their Constitution....I doubt it......
With something like this I believe the leader of the opposition is meant to be a party to all briefings, and consulted before action can be taken. Basically if both leaders are in the loop and agree to the policy, then no one gets a crap sandwich after they win the election - - - Updated - - - Well we did recently agree to export Vegemite to the middle east. Might be something in that
No reason at all, Although we obviously sympahisie with the victims of this particular obscenity, we can`t unscramble a scrambled egg.
I listened to Rudd on about this on radio, it wasn't an interview, more like a door stop. He's bigging himself up on the security council thingo, as if we've got any influence over the US or the USSR or China and the others on this. For the life of me I can't understand why Obama is being sucked into this. The Brits have just told Cameron to shove it and so should we, tell everyone to shove it I mean. Unless and until there is proof that the Assad regime dunnit then no blowing up Damascus.
Obama painted himself and his country into a corner when he claimed that the use of chemicals was the the red line. What is confusing, is that he has jumped to conclusions without sufficient evidence. This is starting to smell a bit fishy. call me scheptical, but perhaps this is more about Syrias proximity to Iran and turkey. They have already destablised Iraq, they are trying to drive the Afghanistan situation. Perhaps the total isolation of Iran is the end game. Obama and the Americans have derided Bush's actions in regard to Iraq over the years, so it confuses me as to why they would commit the same mistake twice. As far as the worlds only living superhero( just ask him, he will tell you ), he should concentrate on issues at hand. Super Rudd will save us, unless Lex Abbott strikes him down with some kryptonite hidden in his dick togs.
