The Syrian Emergency / Police Action / Kerfuffle

[JimC]

Turkey has aspirations to be THE regional power and now that the EUs desire to join the Ottoman Empire is on hold, they may well look to the East.

Where will the Lepanto of the future be?

[Ian]

The whole thing seems ill-advised. Not a major blunder, but a potential one if we don't keep enough distance. But I can't help but think: what's REALLY going on here?

And of course, I have to gripe about: why the US is being looked to do something or not? Why not Saudi Arabia? They could decisively intervene any time they wanted. India has an air force more than capable of establishing a solid no-fly zone, but nobody's wondering what India will do about Syria...

Spend as much as the rest of the Universe combined (I think that's right) on defence and you might be expected to "do things". Whatever "things" are.

I wonder what that budget might look like if our allies actually kept up their end of the bargain. NATO, for example, requires members to spend a minimum 2% of GDP on their military. Most Euro members now spend less than that.

[MrJonno]

UK2.6% and France does 2.2% , Greece spends way more 2.8% one of the reasons its in a mess

Italy is slightly under but the big low spender on defence is Germany 1.3%. If Germany spent more I'm sure people really would start moaning

Of course the US spends 4.7%

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

[JimC]

UK2.6% and France does 2.2% , Greece spends way more 2.8% one of the reasons its in a mess

Italy is slightly under but the big low spender on defence is Germany 1.3%. If Germany spent more I'm sure people really would start moaning

Of course the US spends 4.7%

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

It's when the German government starts subsidising "gliding clubs" that you need to start worrying...

[Clinton Huxley]

The whole thing seems ill-advised. Not a major blunder, but a potential one if we don't keep enough distance. But I can't help but think: what's REALLY going on here?

And of course, I have to gripe about: why the US is being looked to do something or not? Why not Saudi Arabia? They could decisively intervene any time they wanted. India has an air force more than capable of establishing a solid no-fly zone, but nobody's wondering what India will do about Syria...

Spend as much as the rest of the Universe combined (I think that's right) on defence and you might be expected to "do things". Whatever "things" are.

I wonder what that budget might look like if our allies actually kept up their end of the bargain. NATO, for example, requires members to spend a minimum 2% of GDP on their military. Most Euro members now spend less than that.

It is what it is. The US has the greatest capacity for intervention.

"If there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action." — Thomas Jefferson

[Jason]

Canada only spends 1.5%, but we field twice as much as Australia who spends 1.9%. Odd that.

[pErvinalia]

Our forces are twice as good.

[Collector1337]

"If there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action." — Thomas Jefferson

And what kind of help do they want?

Arms.

Don't anyone tell jonno or groper, they might shit themselves.

[pErvinalia]

I say we send them Mr Jonno!

[Jason]

Our forces are twice as good.

Oh you're serious.

[JimC]

I say we send them Mr Jonno!

Now, now, rEv, WMD's are surely a bit over the top...

[pErvinalia]

Half our military budget is probably wasted on our submarine fuckups. I think we've sent billions of dollars down that plughole.

[JimC]

Canada only spends 1.5%, but we field twice as much as Australia who spends 1.9%. Odd that.

You have to protect yourself against a dangerous and unstable neighbour the other side of a long land border. Of course you need a greater field force...

[Ian]

The whole thing seems ill-advised. Not a major blunder, but a potential one if we don't keep enough distance. But I can't help but think: what's REALLY going on here?

And of course, I have to gripe about: why the US is being looked to do something or not? Why not Saudi Arabia? They could decisively intervene any time they wanted. India has an air force more than capable of establishing a solid no-fly zone, but nobody's wondering what India will do about Syria...

Spend as much as the rest of the Universe combined (I think that's right) on defence and you might be expected to "do things". Whatever "things" are.

I wonder what that budget might look like if our allies actually kept up their end of the bargain. NATO, for example, requires members to spend a minimum 2% of GDP on their military. Most Euro members now spend less than that.

It is what it is. The US has the greatest capacity for intervention.

"If there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action." — Thomas Jefferson

Righto! So I assume the UN will be petitioning India any day now to establish that no-fly over Syria...

There's a lot to "capacity". India does not have naval deployments in the western Pacific, troops in Afghanistan, doesn't take on a bodyguard role for Taiwan or South Korea, et cetera... The US is big and though... and stretched pretty darn thin.

[pErvinalia]

You need conscription.