Syria

[John Wren]

other than seeking a distraction why is the government so keen on bombing syria?

[Tannin]

There is no "other".

[John Wren]

i was trying to ascertain whether there was a financial or international political benefit but couldn't for the life of me work out a logical reason. it is abhorrent the govt is considering expending considerable resources to a phoney conflict.

[Tannin]

But let's pretend that there is an "other", just for fun. We have two possibilities and only two possibilities:

(a) Our forces have been so wildly successful that there aren't enough targets left anywhere else, so they have to bomb Syria or go home 'coz there is nothing else to do.

(b) Our forces are usefully and fully engaged in Iran, so given our very limited resources, bombing Syria can only take place at the cost of not doing the job properly in Irak.

Which one is your money on?

[Jezza]

[Tannin]

Why bury this in a long, tedious thread that most of us have given up reading long since? This is a different aspect of the conflict, and it is as much - well, OK, more - about domestic politics than it is about ISIS.

[David]

Because there's nothing like a good war for the polls.

(Which is not to say that bombing ISIS targets in Syria is necessarily wrong. That's a complex argument in its own right. But we're always going to be a bit player in that at best, so our involvement is more or less irrelevant.)

[Jezza]

[Tannin]

Possibly to the surprise of a few here - and the disgust of PTID no doubt - I support our participation in the conflict, and if bombing in Syria rather than Iraq is more useful to the ostensible purpose (as distinct from the real purpose, which is of course getting Abbott reelected), then so be it.

In the end, the only way we are going to resolve the refugee crisis is by removing the regime which is causing it. If we are going to refuse entry to Australia (and Europe) to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people trying to escape places like Syria (as I believe we should), then we are morally obligated to help them reclaim their land.

[John Wren]

[Mugwump]

^ and just how would you tell the difference, JW ?

Personally, after the disaster of Iraq, i think we're better off allowing it to run its course and laving that region to its own catastrophic devices.

[David]

[Tannin]

What has your response got to do with my post? This gets tedious, reading your responses to things you made up that I neither said nor meant. The target here is IS. No-one except you thinks otherwise.

[David]

Sorry, a misunderstanding – I thought your second paragraph was dependent on the first (i.e. "The only way of solving this problem is getting rid of Assad", therefore "we should bomb Syria"). If you read your post again you'll probably see how I came to the conclusion I did.

[Tannin]

No worries, David. No, much as I can happily blame Assad for everything from sunspots down, the regime I have in mind to get rid of is of course IS, though I'd settle for Abbott's if the end of that one is on offer.