Lies about history are one of the major causes of foreign policy mistakes.
The media has told nothing but lies about the justifications for the US invasion of Iraq, including the Iraqi use of chemical weapons on their own population. The media has created the fiction, now accepted by almost everyone that those justifications were never there and "Bush lied".
The US invasion of Iraq was based on mistakes, not on fraud. Some of the justifications were real and others were based on the best intelligence the CIA could gather (while failing to figure out the fact that Iranian intelligence was more competent and actively tricking the CIA into believing the US needed to invade).
The justifications for invading Iraq were clearer and better and more honest than any justifications for bombing Syria, but they were still WRONG.
That is where the media lies about Iraq lead to bad policy in Syria. If you buy the media fabrication that the Iraq justifications were based on fraud, you will see Syria as entirely different. If you ignore the fact that a hostile (to the US) player successfully manipulated the evidence on the ground in Iraq (especially regarding the nuclear weapons program) then you will discount the likelihood that someone is tricking the CIA this time.
The US bombing of Libya had no real justification correct or incorrect. Obama did that just to satisfy his allies in the media. So of course the media has ignored the horrible consequences of that war. But by ignoring those consequences, you validate a terrible policy that likely will be used next in Syria: The US can engage in massive bombing, killing the civilian supporters of the dictator and providing air support for an unpopular Islamist faction to overwhelm a more popular government. As long as the media is in favor of overthrowing the dictator, they will happily label all the slaughter from that bombing "enforcing a no fly zone". Then the US can simply leave the mess it created, send in no peace keepers and allow the Islamists to pick up the pieces. Again as long as the press is on your side a horrible disaster can look like success.

If you were right about the situation in Syria (which I think is not the case) then it still seems out of character for you to demand that the US be the world's policeman.

If there were a clear good vs. evil (rather than evil vs. evil) in the war in Syria, why doesn't Australia "go in" to support the good side? Given the history and politics, France would be a better choice for policeman this time (except for their track record of always making a lame start at such things and then convincing the US to take over).

What does "going in" mean anyway? You know the US isn't going to send in the hundreds of thousands of peace keepers it would take to separate the sides and slightly reduce the killing. If the US intervenes it would be with bombing that (as in Libya) kills far far more people than the number we were there to protect.

Bombing doesn't protect people. Bombing in Libya selected the otherwise weaker and less popular side in a civil war as the winner and allowed them to create a ruthless government far more brutal in killing dissidents than the evil dictator they replaced.

We can do that again in Syria or we can stay out.

I suggest staying out.

I think if the US steps in, China, Russia and India all should jump in and say: Sup Americans? You wouldn't be trying to pull another Iraq would you?

If this does turn in to another Iraq, then I hope Russia has the guts to hit the US and hard with decimation. 10 nukes all hit one lower state, and then release a political statement, something along the lines of if we catch you playing "police of the world" again we will turn another state to glass and we will keep doing until you learn to keep you nose where it belongs and not in the affairs of others.

Sometimes to beat a bully you need a bigger bully... Russia is that bigger bully and I hope it has the guts to set things right.

I did not demand anything. The OP talks about the US entering into another war not about it being the worlds policeman. My answer was with regards to entering into another war not if it should police the planet. The US is a part of various organisations, NATO being one of them, they do not have to do anything alone, they do not have to start anything alone, and they most certainly shouldn't threaten anything alone. Telling the world the use of Chemical weapons is a game changer, something that is be rather obvious I would think, backed the US into a corner it could not get out of if the use of chemical weapons eventuated. In the past the US has made huge errors of judgement (Iraq and WMDs which there is still no evidence of) but the Kurds and other minorities had been suffering there (although there were still other options with regards to Iraq).

There are people dying in Syria, dying because their own leaders and military are using their own weapons against them. As an individual you do not have to believe it and I respect your right to but I do and even though I am against war I do believe that other countries need to do something to stop, or at the very least limit the amount of human suffering through death or bodily harm. NATO (more specifically France) enforced a no fly zone over Libya I personally believe NATO should have done it over Syria ages ago.

Simple reason for Australia not being able to do anything right now, we are in an election process. Unlike other countries our government goes into caretaker mode and cannot do anything except defend our own country.

The U.S. government and its citizens should start to learn minding their own business and their own problems – which by the way, are huge with the current economic crisis going on. I see too much “concern” about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but seriously, do you believe Al Assad is stupid enough to use chemical weapons precisely when a UN commission was investigating the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria? People should stop and think for a second to whom do the alleged use of these weapons would benefit under these circumstances.

Something else: people tearing their hair for this should know that the U.S. has been using depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq (and who knows where else) during the last years, and this type of weapons are far worse than poisonous gas because they linger in the environment for thousands of years and cause cancer and children with malformations. So IMO all this “concern” and “indignation” from the U.S. government is nothing but hypocrisy... What a coincidence, Syria – as Iraq, Libya and Iran – has a lot of oil (can anyone see a pattern here?), so anyone who believes in “good intentions” behind a possible attack on Syria has to be very naive.

Very good point and for that reason both sides of the Syrian fight should be considered suspect. But yes, I do think he is stupid enough.

Why does it always have to come down to this? If someone disagrees with someone else they must be naive. There are always more sides to a problem that meets the eye but to discount good intentions just because you personally don't believe in them says no one elses opinion matters.

Only if corporate execs, bankers, stockholders, rush limbaugh and fox news and congress are the foot soldiers in it.
Leave the young folks out of it.

The bombs were all US. The fuel was all US. Most of the planes and most of the pilots were US. All the other logistics and resources were also US. The policy might have been driven by France, but that war was fought by the US.

"No fly zone" was (and always is) a euphemism for a massive bombing campaign. We do not have a magic system for shooting down enemy planes in enemy controlled air space. It takes massive bombing to neutralize enemy communications and air defenses and to destroy enough ground support that the enemy air force cannot function.

In the case of Libya, French policy carried out by the US went much further and attacked civilian and military support for the regime to open a path for a weak rebel force to win the civil war.

If you are in favor of outside military intervention in Syria, then you are not against war. Despite the media hype, there is no compelling case for intervention. Certainly what is happening in Syria is terrible. But the same can be said about the situation in many other countries.

What all that boils down to is asking the US to bear all the costs of being the world's policeman but leave the decisions and authority for those actions to others.

Police who take risks to enforce laws controlled by others get paid to do so. The US doesn't get paid anything when we act as the world's policeman. In fact we pay for the privilege in addition to paying all the direct costs and as a bonus we get world wide condemnation for our actions.

You think it makes things better in Libya that the US only did the killing and paid the costs, while France set the policy and provided the moral authority? Any sane American can tell you that made the US role much worse.

It's very clear that the U.S. government only wants to have Al Assad overthrown no matter what (they have said it over and over again during the last months). They've taken a clear position on the conflict since months ago and they've given weapons to the Syrian opposition (which by the way has committed horrible crimes in Syria), so they're obviously not impartial. They can't pretend to be judge and police in the conflict. Even less when they are an active part of it... So, no, I don't believe they have good intentions.

If I were a young soldier I would be thinking why sacrifice my life fighting for other countries. I took an oath to defend my own country. We're not at war with Syria.

I feel bad what happen to the people in Syria but destroying young lives at the expense of other countries issues is something to think about. Either way, in any war nobody wins but dies.

This pro US line is so tiring. France started enforcing it before the US was even able to.

I don't doubt the rebels have committed crimes, what I doubt is the ability of 5 year old children to be able to comprehend what's going on let alone fight and there are to many womena dn children getting hurt. I seriously don't care about the militants (government or rebels) what I do care about is the innocents.

You have your opinion, I have mine, just don't tell me anyone who is worried about people who don't want to fight is naive.

I dont think there is any stopping it. The reigning global economic interests strategy is to destabilize, bankrupt and then buy/co-opt and control nations and markets. The US gov is just their errand boy and will no doubt do what its told. We are all collateral damage.
If there are any natural resources worth having in Syria, it will be part of the empire.

No. He is evil, not stupid. The CIA's own evidence shows the alleged use of chemical weapons did not go through the chain of command in the Syrian military. That leads fools in the media to groundless speculation that the orders when directly from the top of the command structure to the field bypassing intermediate layers. But it is far more plausible either that the entire event was a fabrication (good enough to fool the Syrian military into the secret internal investigation that the CIA thinks it discovered) or the event was a treasonous act by low ranking officers trying to harm the regime from within.

All that is absurd. DU stays in the environment for billions of years, not thousands. It does not cause any of the health problems that are blamed on it. Overwhelming evidence contradicts all the claimed health impacts. The supposed support comes from statistical studies of populations that might or might not have been exposed to any DU, but definitely were exposed to serious toxins, such as the chemical weapons Sadam Hussein used against his own people in exactly the parts of the country that now have statistical health problems blamed on DU. Large numbers of people who have proven long term DU exposure tens of thousands of times higher than those populations have zero health problems linked to DU.

You're right about it; I wasn't sure if it was thousands or millions (billions?) of years. (Much worse, then!).

Then what do you think is causing the rise in cancer cases and birth defects in Iraq during the last years? Hard to believe that a radioactive and toxic metal doesn't cause health issues in people that has inhaled the smoke resulting from these ammunitions or has ingested water and food polluted with it.