//(b) We shouldn't bomb, or take any hostile action, against the fascist ISIS thugs.//

I don't know about not taking any hostile action. But just bombing won't do much except make lots of rubble. The Krauts tried it on the British during the WW2 and it didn't stop them losing the war. Airstrikes are nice because the good guys don't get hurt, but I'm not sure how effective they are a winning strategy.

//Actually, Vietnamese is quite a beautiful language, I've tried to learn the basics. For some years, I sold Vietnamese coffee at the Sunday markets and met some really great people. They'd often been through hell, but were usually happy and positive. Bloody good workers too.//

Thanks for reiterating my point.

Loudmouth wrote: "Which is the second worstest enemy ? Asaad."

Perhaps you could watch the 56:28 minute interview of President Bashar al-Assad on 10 Sep 2013 by Charlie Rose of 60 minutes at https://candobetter.net/?q=node/3445 and tell us what questions he should have put to President Bashar al-Assad in order to better make his audience what a horrible person al-Assad was.

Loudmouth wrote:

What will replace ... is ... hopefully, a democratic, popularly-elected government

Syrians already have a democratic, popularly-elected government.

On 4 June 2014 President Bashar al-Assad won overwhelming endorsement of the Syrian voters. 88.7% of the 73.42% of eligible Syrian voters who voted, voted for President Bashar al-Assad. So, of 15,845,575 Syrians eligible to vote, eligible voters 10,319,723 or 65.13% voted for Bashar al-Assad. The validity and fairness of that election was verified by international observers at a press conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York on 19 June 2014. See https://candobetter.net/node/3888 with embedded 53 minute video.

Name one leader of any of the governments opposed to President al-Assad who enjoys anything close to that level of public support?
the Syrian government has far more legitimacy than any of its international opponents

I have seen an increasing number of comments recently that it is not
realistic to expect Islamic Arab countries to accept democratic government.
The suggestion is that their history, tradition and their
religion precludes the acceptance of democratic systems and the
separation of government, courts and religion.

Those three principles are completely at odds with Islam.
It is now ingrained with the people and they see our governments as
being very weak, something we all agree with at times.
It took our forebears hundreds of years to break the connections and
indeed the reformation to enable the parliament to insist on its
separation from executive of government.

The above comments are the reason that the west's understanding of
what the Arab Spring was about was so wrong.
It never was a thrust for democratic government, it was a protest
against unfair government, high prices for food and a failure to bring
prosperity to the masses of the people.

Prime Minister Abbott, here is more compulsory reading for you. (copied and pasted from above comments on OLO).

On 4 June 2014 President Bashar al-Assad won overwhelming endorsement of the Syrian voters. 88.7% of the 73.42% of eligible Syrian voters who voted, voted for President Bashar al-Assad. So, of 15,845,575 Syrians eligible to vote, eligible voters 10,319,723 or 65.13% voted for Bashar al-Assad. The validity and fairness of that election was verified by international observers at a press conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York on 19 June 2014. See https://candobetter.net/node/3888 with embedded 53 minute video.

Name one leader of any of the governments opposed to President al-Assad who enjoys anything close to that level of public support?
the Syrian government has far more legitimacy than any of its international opponents
(end copy paste)

Prime Minister Abbott, if you want reconciliation and peace in the Middle East then you could lead the process by assisting the Assad government to force ISIS out of Syria.

JF Aus do you know if voting is compulsory ?
Probably not, as it is not very common.
I suspect in countries with religious divides the percentages may only
mostly be of one religious group. Difficult to determine that.
A big uncertainty.
The civil war that followed proves my point.

Bazz, I think the great division between religions and tribes in the Middle East is why a dictatorial type of government is most suited to those countries, such as Syria.

Iraq and Syria were both doing reasonably well socially and economically until the west decided to force democracy.

And anyway, what is democracy as we know it here?
Just look at major media in Australia dumbing down and also influencing the thoughts and votes of our people.