@Tolstoy the invasion of Iraq came first. Israel attempted to subjugate Lebanon in 2006 and failed, then the Salafists grew in strength then were defeated in 2014. That was another failure. Libya's been destroyed. That was a success. Sudan's been divided in two. Another success. That leaves Syria, Somalia, and Iran. Somalia really isn't that important at this point compared to some of the other countries. We've yet to see what happens in Syria.

And now ISIS are attacking the army base.

Go back to Reagan/Bush helping Iran and Iraq kill each other off by supplying weapons to Iran for hostages and intelligence to Iraq.

Israel invaded Lebanon to eliminate the PLO state within the state. Then accepted US guarantees to only exile them to Africa. This led to the Oslo accords and Hezbollah taking over the area.

Libya's a partial success since there are still strong terrorist groups controlling large areas.

ISIS member thanks US killing 8 in Minnessotta.
CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!

Iran is the easiest country in the world someone could convince an American is much worse than it really is.

There may have been an involvement in the bombing of the Syrian army by the RAAF . independent member of the Australian Parliament ( house of Representatives, not Senate ) Andrew Wilkie has called for an independent review / investigation from US Air Force investigation.

@MajorMitchell the good news is both the US and Australia regret it.

Well the respective governments have to say that they regret it, and have to say it was a mistake

The civilians who were victims I would regard as innocent victims without any knowledge of them, but I have my doubts that members of the Syrian armed forces are innocent, so if the RAAF hit the Syrian army and not the civilians then I'm not going to be terribly upset..obviously I think the priority is smash ISIS / daeth but I don't have much regard for the Syrian army that supports a dictatorship and has inflicted terrible casualties on the civilians

I see the Russians got even by bombing an Aid convoy and unlike us in the West who use the mistake and we're sorry spin, the Russians predictably are blaming a US attack drone diversion spin

Mitchell, what do you mean by "innocent"? An army is made to kill; this isn't a fairy tale world we live in.

Carumba Leon.. I was differentiating between the civilians and the Syrian army, and yes you could say no army is innocent, but there are professional, elite armies that conduct themselves honourably, follow the Geneva Convention, follow rules of engagement, have a robust system of mitary justice that is ethical etc and there are armies that do not, it's complex

lol he specifically said civilians, it shouldn't be hard to figure out what innocent meant

The main problem is the US and the Syrian government aren't supposed to be at war, so bombing the Syrian government forces poses a diplomatic problem.

Don't worry, Obama hasn't been effective in Syria, but we'll get someone in who knows foreign policy and puts hammer and tongs at it, so we c-

*looks around*

ah shit

Bahaha, the joke is that Americans are historically terrible with foreign policy, and will continue to be for quite some time

I know, but now since Matthew is in the Marines I have some stake in what happens.

Of course whenever I talk to Matthew or ANY of his friends, what he said:

"I don't want to go kill the first person I see, do I want to kill babies? only on Tuesdays. But there are people out there who are bad, and I'm just begging them to dare aim a gun at me and see what happens."

funny thing is he still knows more on foreign policy than me. It's immediately simplified though when you're infantry

@"...but I don't have much regard for the Syrian army that supports a dictatorship and has inflicted terrible casualties on the civilians"

You realise they are mostly Alawites, right? (This secretive religion which is neither Shia nor Sunni) - they started out as a minority in Syria, though the one in power, and if they lose they lose everything. Their power, their home, their state, and probsbly their lives. There is no other Alawite state to take them in, so even if the sought refuge in Iran, they would quickly become a discriminated against minority...

Assad control the majority Alawite areas of Syria, the Russians helped him consolidate the strategically important coastal ports and cities with local support. So basically even if they don't like it, thry are stuck defending their homes and people.

You don't like it? Well take a look at US, you support a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, among others, and kill your own civilians with drone strikes (not to mention police on black murders) The US regularily starts wars where civilians die. Listen to some ex- (i wanna say CIA, but maybe it is airforce generals) commanders talk about ordering drone strikes at 2am and thinking to themselves - can i live with myself, if i don't bomb these people and there is a terrorist strike, or if i do and there are civilian casualties...

Clearly civilian casualties are only justified when it is the US causing them.

I don't like the Syrian Army either, but they are the only option for the Alawites, they and Assad need to be brought to a peace negotiation which breaks up Syria and leaves them safe and secure, or we will see another near genocide of the Alawite people. But i don't hate them, they are doing what you should expect any human to do, protecting their own - even i they don't like Assad, and i suspect they love him as much as you love Obama - they have very little choice. (Thise who had a choice, the non-Alawite army officer, they left and formed the Free Syrian Army, because if Assad falls the non-Alawites aren't guarenteed to suffer)

@"have a robust system of mitary justice that is ethical"

Yes, the ethical murder of humans is sooo much better than the unethical murder...

@"
The main problem is the US and the Syrian government aren't supposed to be at war, so bombing the Syrian government forces poses a diplomatic problem."

Really? You think 'we can bomb you whenever we want, even by accident' sends a terrible diplomatic message to the Assad regime? Not like strengthening their hand?

Also Russia's responce of telling the US - this is why we're bombing the thing you don't want us to bomb, is a typical tit-for-tat strategy. They hurt you, you hurt them, then go back to business as usual... Even if it was an accident, you have to retaliate as if they meant it. In game theiry this is a stable strategy, and in world war 1 trench warfare it was a practiced by artillary crews who were accurate enough to miss the whole time is the intended to...

@orathaic

ethical murder is an oxymoron. murder is unethical.

is ethical killing possible? self defense? to help the victims? to eat food and stay alive?

if you want to purely argue military ethics that's one argument. I believe that some killing is justified. that however is another argument, but I'm not 100% sure which one you are addressing.

"ethical murder is an oxymoron"

I agree. It's kind of like "humane euthanasia". Somehow it's humane to kill pet animals because they can't find a home when it wouldn't be humane to kill homeless people.

No, morality and Ethics are two different things.

Murder is, by definition, immorale killing. However the ethics of how you should behave in an army (back up your buddies, follow orders etc.) are not neccesarily moral.

Like if you join the engineers association, and the ethical guidelines require you to defend the reputation of engineers when you see them attacked. You are no being a good engineer is you don't defend them, but you can still he a good human... Or the ethics of teaching, migh prohibit you from sleeping with your students, despite them growing over the age of consent at some point.... (Though the morality of that might he questionable too... The legality is another matter)

@Leon and 'humane' - you notice that oets are not human and homeless people are? I think there may be some relationship between the word humane and human... I'll leave figuring out that as an exercise for the reader.

I never said pets were human. I'm just saying they shouldn't sugarcoat it.

So humane euthanasia is killing a pet animal like one would kill a human, except one wouldn't kill a human in such a situation.

Yeah, they mean painlessly, it is entirely how you would kill a human if they asked to die and were suffering a terminal illness. It is how we kill pets if they are suffering a terminal (and painful) illness.

It is not sugar-coating to say, 'well we could push it in front of a train, but we fogured this would be nicer...'

Except most pets euthanized aren't euthanized because they suffer a disease. Their euthanized because they can't find a home after a certain amount of time. Also, I'm opposed to assisted suicide as well.

*They're

Here's the example I'll put out there
Injured enemy ( minor injuries, not fatal ) has been disarmed..do you provide medical aid and treat the person as a prisoner according to Geneva Convention.. Which has a much higher cost than simply executing them on the spot, or do you kill them and move on...and the cost I mentioned is more than simply dollars / money
eg you are on patrol in enemy held territory...hauling an injured prisoner about costs you at least one, possibly two chaps, time and attention... patching, him up and leaving him behind might compromise your security..his mates pick him up after your patrol has moved on, he gives them useful information.. Your chaps get ambushed