Stop ovoiding the topic, how does one butcher his people when those people try to overthrow the government by force. You have to be naive to think that other governments won't do the same. Please do grab a weapond and try to see if you can storm the White House, i can guarantee that a secret service sniper will kill you.
Nobody's avoiding the topic; you are begging the question in typical confused, backwards 'logic'.
The Syrian people, i.e. students and ordinary people, demanded their rights in peaceful protests. The situation escalated to armed conflict precisely because the government failed to resolve the matter peacefully. In a democratic system, if sufficient numbers of people demanded reforms, the government would respond by holding a referendum or, worst case, a full re-election.
Your silly flights of fancy into people storming into the White House or Australian Parliament are good for comic relief, but have no comparison to the Syrian situation.
Epic fail
Georgia attacked Russian first, Russian peice keeping forces in South Ossestia were attacked well before Russia fired a single shot a Georgia. Your think tank status should be revoked for such blatantly fooloish statments.
Never mind my statuses. Your propaganda may play with brainwashed Russians, but the rest of the world is well aware of the Russian tricks violating the peace-keeping truce in South Ossetia which prompted the Georgian actions. It was Russia which disturbed the status quo in South Ossetia.
And, in any case, your claim that Russia never bombed a 'peasant country' was shown to be false -- regardless of your fake propaganda justifications.
And they are also killing Syrian servicemen and trying to topple the government by force. Again should Syria do nothing? Should Pakistan or Australia allow anarchists to topple their governments?
If you shot an Australian or Pakistant soldier you should probably expect to be shot back, much like what the protestors are experiencing. As for soldiers being loyal, all soldiers are loyal to their country, not everyone has the same political views just like Democrats or Republicans yet soldiers serve under the same flag.
What gives those 'brave' protestors the right to shoot soldiers serving their country? Are you supportive of anarchists killing Pakistani or Australian soldier?
Since you seem unable to understand how democractic societies work, let me explain it to you.
When people in a democractic society engage in a
peaceful protest, they are not fired upon by the military. In fact, the mere involvement of the military -- as opposed to regular law enforcement -- is a sign that things have gone way, way, way too far. Any democratic government would be forced to resign long before they can call the military to fire upon their own citizens.
I studied the American constitution and democracy
i know it better than you.
Highly unlikely, given your basic ignorance of the role of the military in a democratic society. Do you have the faintest clue of the role of the second amendment?
And your democratic theory is nice---in theory, however, i don't know how well it would hold up in real life. Just like how the PARTRIOT act defies many aspects of the American constitution. And here is something to ponder if the Australian government defied the constitution what makes you think that the Australian military will not defy it? Which brings us back to the topic. And do not try talk you way out of the topic like you have been doing. If the Austrailian military fails to do anything then what? What about Pakistan or any other country for that matter. Never mind hypothetical constitutions, if armed groups of people tried to overtake any government they would be either thrown into prison or killed.
Good lord, you are so desperate to avoid the point you have let yourself go on a wild goose chase and lost the plot completely!
You started out lecturing about how democractic Australia would react to mass unrest and, now that your silly canard was shown to be fundamentally flawed, you are clutching at straws about Australian military also abandoning democratic principles. You can play that fantasy game to reach any conclusion you like by imagining all sorts of 'what ifs' but the fact remains that, in a democratic society, the military's role is to protect the constituiton, not the government.
Once again,
a democractic government has legitimacy only as long as it abides by the constitution. Not that we expect a Russian to have the faintest clue in this matter.
And you know that very well.
What I know is that you are way out of your league talking about democracy. Better stick to the Russian version of 'democracy', where even prominent critics magically disappear or die of radioactive poisoning.
