Obama is due to address his nation at 11am this morning.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-07/obama-to-outline-security-plans-in-rare-oval-office-address/7005826

Will he take the guns or send forces into Syria to fight IS?

Would anyone place any stock in what Obama says? He is all ideology and narrative. He is a morally-superior, moralising, BS artist.

Terrorists manufacture and arm themselves with pipe bombs that through luck are not quite up to the mark and the next ones would be for more numerous targets, but Obama spins it all as a 'gun control' problem. One of the terrorists, perhaps the mastermind is a woman, but that was kept quiet for as long as possible. The spin goes on and on, relentless, to a mushroomed electorate.

The US needs a statesman, but then so does Australia.

Obama said that they stop people from flying but they don't stop them from buying guns.big deal, they don't stop them from buying petrol either, or pipe for pipe bombs nor do they deny them access to the wherewithal to make explosives.

Fourteen dead in Cairo from petrol bombs; when will Obama ban or seriously restrict the sale of petrol?

//Fourteen dead in Cairo from petrol bombs; when will Obama ban or seriously restrict the sale of petrol?//

And more to the point, when will he ban people from siphoning it out of cars? It's no good restricting the supply of petrol to the law-abiding, you have to restrict its supply to the criminal classes as well.

Like usual they can't even hit the right targets or did they do it on purpose.

BEIRUT, Dec 7 (Reuters) - The Syrian government said on Monday four warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition bombed a Syrian army camp in Deir al Zor province, which would be the first known attack by the coalition against government forces.

Three soldiers were killed and 13 wounded the Syrian government said. It called the attack an act of aggression.

The jets fired nine missiles at the camp on Sunday evening, Syria's foreign ministry said in a statement flashed on state television.

A monitoring group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, reported earlier that jets likely to be from the coalition that is targeting Islamic State hit an army camp in Deir al-Zor province, killing four Syrian army personnel.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/syrian-government-says-us-led-coalition-hit-army-camp/ar-AAg6lYv?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=mailsignout

I'm closer to eighty than seventy and always taken an interest in US politics since my Vietnam days. I'm bound to say that Mr OBAMA is probably the worst US President in my memory, on many fronts, in fact too numerous to mention. I'd be a Republican if I were a US citizen in any event.

What I would like to see, is a comment from DAVID F, on Mr OBAMA and what he's 'achieved' for his country and his constituents, since taking the oval office ? Please DAVID F, I'd like to hear your most welcome opinion, if you'd be so kind ?

Looks like Obama was trying to justify the US-Coalitions position in fighting ISIS (even thought its illegal under international law) and turn the US No-Fly list into the No-Buy list (guns).

http://youtu.be/6C-493oPw4Q

There's some reason to think that possibly some of these mass shootings in America might be staged in order to go after the guns.

I have to agree with you guys that there are plenty of other ways to kill people without guns if a person was really that inclined to harm others.

The US has been targeting Syrian infrastructure for some time.
Water treatment plants, Power Plants, Grain Silos etc.

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/as-russia-bombs-isis-us-bombs-syrian-civilian-power-stations.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-aleppo-water-idUSKBN0TK4F020151201#YQ6qQ2A0TXhjiorT.97

One question you might want to ask regards the oil is that Britain bombed an IS oil refinery a few days back.
Why didn't the US bomb it?
They've been there for over a year.

If you cant bring yourself to consider that IS is a skeleten key US tool to destabilise countries, then at the very least you have to accept that the US has been passively using IS to further its own objectives.

Assad is right when he says the US plan will fail.
No nation can fight terrorism on its own, and they are not going to be effective without a ground component.
They will fail without the help of the Syrian government, no matter what your position is on Assad.

The only reason they keep this insanity going is because the US views Assad as a greater threat than IS (which is absurd) and has invested too much money and political capital to have their plans stymied by Russia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-president-bashar-al-assad-says-british-air-strikes-will-fail-and-mocks-david-cameron-farce-a6762591.html

Another thing I heard was that the US had Turkey shoot down the Su-24M to force Russia to provide fighter cover and expose its electronic warfare systems. The US has nothing to counter these systems and was looking for a way to get intel.

Also forgot to mention some interesting info about the US strikes on the Syrian Army in Deir ez-Zour province.
Apparently the Russians killed 600 militants there on 20 November.
I'm thinking this was more of a US response rather than a mistake.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4728686,00.html

The article also state the Russians took out 15 oil facilities.
How can the US miss 15 oil facilities when they've been there 14mths?

It is absurd to claim that any western attack on any of the moslem
countries is illegal.
Everyone of them except Jordan has harboured Islamic organisations
that have made attacks on western countries, such as US, UK, France
Belgium and no doubt others.
Just because those countries nominal governments have not declared
war on the western countries is irrelevant.
They have allowed those organisations to operate out of their territories
and so they cannot escape responsibility by denial.

They cannot use the excuse that they have no control over those
organisations as that is tantamount to declaring they are not the government.
So it must be assumed that the country does not have a government.

It is illegal under international law.
If you send troops into another country without their permission it is considered an invasion.
Russia is the only one doing things by the book.

Neither Syria or Iraq want US troops in their countries - look it up.

Don't get me wrong I sure as hell am not sticking up for IS.
I want them dealt with as much as anyone, and the sooner the better.

The problem is the Islam countries starting all the trouble are the US allies, and the Western coalitions priority is Assad not IS.
The US started the trouble I don't think they can be trusted to fix the situation.
They only ever make things worse, with their lies, frauds and deceptions.

AC, it is illogical for a government that does not control its country
to either grant permission or deny permission.
It is nonsense.
They do not have the power to grant or deny.
It really is as simple as that.

Bazz, I think your reply should read America do not care about or honor the law of sovereignty of other countries unless it suits their ultimate goal (whatever it may be in the current situation).

They will do and have done in the past whatever it takes to achieve regime change or other agendas.

Marine Le Pen at the European Parliament on Islam and terror http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO29xfBJ6KQ

Jay of Melbourne;
That speach of Marine Le Pen was very interesting.

One of the commentators down the page said;
“Islam made me do it” is no more credible than “The devil made me do
it.” If Islam is the enemy, then each Muslim is off the responsibility
hook. At Nuremberg, "I was just following orders" was an inadmissible
defense.
Each Muslim must be held accountable for allowing himself to be attached to Islam.
end quote

This I think is a valid argument. If a moslem says they do not
support what has been done they should leave Islam immediately.

Phillip S, there is no sovereignty in Syria, the Syrian government no
longer controls its land. Sovereignty is a non issue.
The residue of government around Damascus is not being attacked
except by the rebels and even parts of Damascus are occupied by the rebels.

The Syrian government would disappear tomorrow or the day after if
the Russians went home.

Hey Bazz,
I've been thinking about your argument that "it is illogical for a government that does not control its country to either grant permission or deny permission."
Maybe at some level you have a point, I want to try to argue the merits of it fairly.

Firstly, what if it was our country?
What if foreign jihadist nations put our country in their sights and somehow bumrushed our borders, overwhelmed our security measures and got a foothold in our nation, wanting to raise the IS flag?

Would you say it was ok for a foreign power to bomb our towns and cities without our permission?
What if that foreign power also opposed our government and sought to change the leadership of our nation?
Would you still think it was ok bomb our nation?

Another way...
What sort of precedent does it set if you allow nations to stop observing international law?

Say we ignore these points...
What if this ends up leading to WW3?
When the nukes are dropping, would you then admit that maybe your thoughts were misguided and that following international law might've been better - in hindsight - hypothetically?

If foreign countries stopped interfering this war could be over in a few months, the alternative is potential nuclear war.

Here's a recent interview with Assad.
http://sana.sy/en/?p=63558

Philip S
There was another alleged US airstrike in Syria yesterday killing 26 civilians.
http://youtu.be/Xj_TF73FnKA

Jay of Melbourne
Nice video. Good on her for standing up and saying what others are to gutless to say and for caring about her country...
- Even though much of her rant was probably politically incorrect in today's world.

Finally, How do you guys see this conflict eventuating?

I'm worried that as soon as coalition forces start bombing Syria properly, a British, French or US plane will get shot down (false flag) and Russia and Assad will get the blame, and the Western powers will retaliate militarily.

I can almost bet this is going to turn bad.
Neither side is going to compromise on Assad.

OTB, Is Mise and o sung wu, America has the kind of guy that would appeal to you. His name is Donald J Trump, all for guns, a redneck and the best thing politically ISIS has going for it in the US. Doing a great job of dividing the country, alienating the moderates, and the piece de resistance, when he gets into power he will start WWIII for you, as I said... your kind of guy!

AC, it makes no difference, if you cannot enforce your sovereignty
then it does not exist.
There must be dozens of cases around the world where countries lost
sovereignty of part of their country and never got it back and it is now part of another country.

Sth Sudan comes to mind.

Hey there PAUL1405...

That's a bit rough there ol' man ? If you've carefully read any of my previous correspondence on F/A's, I've always supported the sport of shooting and at the same time, urged careful screening of all applicants for F/A licences.

As far as Donald TRUMP'S absurd ideas of halting ALL Muslim immigration into the United States, he's clearly nuts, as it could never be achieved, and it does illustrate how far from reality he is?

Furthermore, your suggestion he could be the catalyst for starting a global conflict, I tend to agree with you, a good example of what a bloke is, when he has loads of money and very little political merit to recommend his brand of 'far right politics' !

I'm unapologetically to 'the Right' myself PAUL as you know, but I'd like to think that I have some balance in my views, and I can appreciate the opinions of those who are diametrically opposed to my particular beliefs ?

Through the misled social policies of the leftist Democrats, continuous leakage across its borders and unfortunate inheritance from the past, the multicultural US has deep social problems.

There is nothing to suggest that Australia will not follow where government is not always applying due diligence, by identifying and treating immigration risks.

This UK report could easily have been written with Australia in mind,

<Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
..
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.
"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.">
http://tinyurl.com/2uzb8gj

Paul,

You or the Greens got any suggestions for keeping that deadly petrol out of the hands of terrorists or criminals?
We've had a few nasty losses of life already due, in part, to the unrestricted access to flamable accelerants.

Hi o sung wu, I was responding to your post " I'd be a Republican if I were a US citizen" and since Trump is the likely Republican candidate for president (so say the polls) I just assumed you would be voting for him, given that chance. Apologies if I'm wrong.
I believe you to be the most balanced of the forums conservative posters, some who will remain nameless I believe are totally unbalanced posters.

p/s Did you sleep through the Nixon, Reagan and Bush jr years. We went all the way with LBJ and 521 Australians paid for it with their lives. I don't agree that Obama is the worst US president in our lifetime or in anyone's lifetime, that honor goes to Ulysses S. Grant, seems he was permanently drunk during his presidency, but then again that could have been a positive. Just as I don't think Tony Abbott is the worse PM Australia ever had, in my book he runs second to Stanley Bruce, and just got past John Howard.

//You or the Greens got any suggestions for keeping that deadly petrol out of the hands of terrorists or criminals?//

Stop refining it. Build cars that utilise a Cayley engine instead. If engines run on gunpowder instead of petrol the terrorists won't be able get hold of it (the petrol, not the gunpowder).

Just kidding. The problem with any sort of internal combustion engine is that the combustible material can be put to nefarious purposes, and it will always be readily available whilst everybody is driving cars with internal combustion engines. Until somebody invents the steam powered car or until electric cars supersede combustion engine cars we're pretty much stuck with petrol.

Even if electric cars take off in a big way in the next few years, electric aeroplanes are a long way off so we're still going to be refining avgas for many moons to come.

Hi there PAUL1405...

Ah that's cool mate ! I am a Republican without any apology, but the ridiculous utterances currently emanating from Mr TRUMP would never get my vote, however far right I may be ! Similarly to that of the treacherous Mr Malcolm TURNBULL. In both cases, I'm bound to submit an informal vote which doesn't help our country very much, I admit ?

But what does one do Paul ? The LNP are moving inexorable closer to the 'Left' under the scholarship of the illustrious TURNBULL PM ? A vote for Labour perhaps, no ? That only leaves the Greens (your Party)? Most definitely, if they'd stuck rigidly to their earlier 'green' credentials, but we both know they're now the third major party, as such there are no other viable options for a cranky old conservative like me, eh Paul ?