Australia Uber Alles

@ etarip 'Hot zone since we'll before the US became a global player', not really sure what this means but it sounds like the old rhetoric about continuous wars in the middle east since the day dot blah blah that has been trotted out since the Iraq/Iran days....it wasn't true then and it isn't true now the US has maintained a program of destabilization in the region to support its interests, that's no secret nor is it condescending. If you read some of the posts and referenced articles you will see that most if not all the other players have been mentioned.

The last paragraph of your post basically repeats points already posted none of which support a thesis that America and American interests aren't a major player in the problems in Syria. Iraq, Afghanistan, lybia, syria, Yemen have all enjoyed peaceful and prosperous times ALL of these countries have been destroyed, laid waste, societies destroyed by the west in support of imperial interests. It's condescending to Arabs to place blame on 'ongoing historical disputes', its simply untrue.

Here you go from the horses mouth.....

My point is that there would be "external" interference in the middle east regardless of the US.
It's been the playground of imperial powers (Mongols, Ottomans, Persians, British, French, Russians) since before the US became involved. I didn't put the blame at the feet of the Arabs. You did. For what it's worth I think this a fundamental resetting of the outcomes of WWI.

The current mess was precipitated by the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Strategic folly. It distracted attention, resources and international unity from making a decent fist of Afghanistan. And it sowed the seeds for what is happening right now. The Iraqi invasion created a vacuum, and a set of circumstances that few predicted and no one is equipped to deal with. However, the regimes of Qaddafi, Hussein or Asad were never going to last, and when they fell there was always going to be chaos. They were built on the suppression of the majority by minorities, in unsustainable 'countries', propped up by brutal security apparatus. These regimes had been (and still are, in the case of Syria) protected by Russia with it's power of veto on the UNSC. Syria has been supported throughout by Iran. The destabilising influences of these actors is as great as the US.

There's too much going on to be able to only play the "blame USA" game. They massively fucked Iraq, I think they've actually been trying to disengage from the Middle East but have found themselves unable to. The rise of ISIL caught them off guard. Wesley Clark's comparison of the Middle East with Africa was interesting. I don't think anyone wants to be there, but they feel they have to be. It's not just oil. It's strategic position.

Do you have a view on what should / could be done? A prediction of how you think it'll turn out? Who will be the 'winners'? (I know who the losers are - 4 million Syrian refugees, 250 000 dead) I'm genuinely interested in what people think.

etarip, humanity can be the winner out of this. if humanity decides it is more important to help people, regardless of how they look, what flag they lived under or what god they prayed to, it can help us all. thats why i would like australia to do more.
as stated, this is about energy, oil/gas, supply and control and about long held grudges as well.
get as many people out of there as possible and let the jackals fight over the rotting carcass.
it also helps humanity in that it shows the importance of using renewable energy sources that cant be controlled like an opec or russian resource.
so the human race and the planet can get a win out of the sacrifice these people have made, less pollution, more compassion and tolerance, but of course thats if it is chosen, otherwise conflict, greed and manipulation has the potential for some serious consequences that will show the ugly side of humanity that comes from the reptilian brain of survival consciousness- i win-u lose stuff, that for thousands of years has demonstrated that it doesnt work.

zenagain wrote:

Manbat (by the way, awesome user name) that was a fascinating read and a real eye opener. Thankyou.

yep...good read

zenagain wrote:

Manbat (by the way, awesome user name) that was a fascinating read and a real eye opener. Thankyou.

Yes it was a good read

Yeah thanks for posting that link manbat. I wonder what tonybarber has to say about this theory on the reasons for the Syrian crisis?

This quote from manbat's link reminds me of an opinion I expressed on one of these forums a while ago and tonybarber accused me of being an ISIS supporter!

"Most sectarian civil wars are purposely crafted to pit sides against one another to allow for a “divide and conquer” approach that breaks larger concentrations of power into smaller factions that have more difficulty linking up. It’s a colonial doctrine that the British Empire famously used, and what we see taking place in Syria is no different."

Over to you tony? Got any opinions to share with us or anymore accusations to throw around?

@ etarip 'My point is that there would be "external" interference in the middle east regardless of the US', well your point is incorrect, its an assumption and doesn't hold any water simply because you say there has been external influence in the past (Ottoman and Persian empires certainly weren't external to the region).

Yes you put it blame on the Arabs, oh its a 'hot zone' of 'ongoing historical diputes' this has been a common propaganda tool, if you my post you would see I do not place blame with Arabs but squarely with USA why would you say that I place the blame with Arabs?

"However, the regimes of Qaddafi, Hussein or Asad were never going to last, and when they fell there was always going to be chaos. They were built on the suppression of the majority by minorities, in unsustainable 'countries', propped up by brutal security apparatus." More propaganda, can you provide some evidence for this, I've already posted some facts about quality of life under Gaddafi in this thread perhaps you would like to challenge those? These regimes have lasted longer than any of the government's attacking them, what you say doesn't make sense.

"These regimes had been (and still are, in the case of Syria) protected by Russia with it's power of veto on the UNSC. Syria has been supported throughout by Iran. The destabilising influences of these actors is as great as the US." what are you even trying to say here??? Russia and iran have been supportive of syria but are destabilising influences, this makes no sense.

"There's too much going on to be able to only play the "blame USA" game", enlighten us what else is going on? By your own admission the problems in Syria relate to Iraq which amercia 'massively fucked' but America aren't major players in the problems in Syria? You are contradicting yousrelf and making no sense.

"I think they've actually been trying to disengage from the Middle East but have found themselves unable to", America can't afford to disengage from the middle East, America is a war thirsty nation each withdrawal seems to be accompanied by another campaign. Since it began as a nation no other country in the world has been at war as long as america.

" The rise of isil caught them off guard", hilarious, is this the faith you have in the American security/intelligence apparatus?

"I don't think anyone wants to be there, but they feel they have to be. It's not just oil. It's strategic position", they want to be there for the oil and strategic position.

What should be done? My position I've stated before, the US and its allies have to withdraw, leave the area, take their militaries and their weapons and allow these countries peace and restoration. The damage done to successful nations has been complete in the case of Afghanistan, iraq, lybia etc if America can't conduct itself less aggressively and destructively it should be shunned as the rogue state that it is. The war criminals including Howard, bush, Cheney should be held accountable.

http://stormcloudsgathering.com/euro-refugee-crisis

We can't afford her and the bombs you want to drop on Syria , Sheepy.

You'll have to pick one.

The scorched Earth policy you reckon is the go sounds expensive.

Yeah sheepy America have made no secret they want Assad out, the POPULARLY ELECTED head of the baath party who won elections by huge majority. America and Allies are once again committed to an illegal invasion. A bombing regime that will be aimed at destroying infrastructure see Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc.
Impossible? Yeah it's certainly a long stretch, I hope that Russia will be able to affect a solution which will render the allied approach meaningless. Remember it was Russia in 2013 that prevented us and allies bombing Assad then.

why aren't journalist's askn g questions? we don't expect it from murdoch and co. but what about the ABC? with the exception of the Leigh Sayles interview the ABC seem pathetic of late, are they hiding stuff too?

interesting how USA doesn't recognise elected governments, hammas democratically elected but not to americas taste so they refuse to recognise them, now we're seing the same here. do they think bush would be to the middle east's taste, do they believe in democracy or not?

Hussein wasn't democratically elected but he certainly provided a safer and more stable society than the US has

The ABC is a state owned media outlet, look for journalists like seymore Hersh who don't tow a political line or outlets like new Matilda which can afford to be more independent there are good journalists out there keeping the mainstream honest.

And here the goverment is seen joking about climate change, fuckwits!

...ahh....there's a boom there

Craig - I must have missed something.....

How do you know they're referring to sinking pacific islands and not the casual island life up North that I thought they were talking about ?

"Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to be.. you know, have water lapping at your door.""

Key word (about to) not currently...

Also the sheepish look they had once they realised it'd been all caught on camera and by the boom that Scott Morrison pointed out. Why he point that out if they were just talking about island life.

Seriously..

Cmon Blowin even I realised what they meant and you are a much smarter man than I!

Alright, just rewatched it .....agreed - trio of unfathomable fucksticks.

Hehe...."trio of unfathomable fucksticks", nice

Never mind the morals what about the way the punchline was delivered?

"Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to be....[stiff pause] you know...have water lapping at your door."

Talk about defusing your own bomb (though I think he may have lit another one).

What rising sea levels ? Maybe Tony and his mates have been portrayed in an unfair way. 'Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule', according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser Maurice Newman. So business as usual, just another storm in a tea cup. !

Fully respect your honesty Sheepy.

Against the grain. I like it.

sea level rises will be increased by climate change .However some think that is bullshit, and a joke about it to them is probably no big deal.....but I guess like all good jokes , timing is everything......and in this case , when the microphones are not in your face.

Ross Garnaut said a couple of days ago that nuclear electricity generation is unlikely to be economically viable in Australia as solar, wind and other renewable energy becomes cheaper.....while other countries will be looking at nuclear to curb their emissions.......

Ross garnaut just set up a solar business, funny that he would say something like that.

Ha-ha, good ol Rosco, thanks for that post sheepy, uranium too expensive to develop in aus (competing with my solar company) but so cheap for the rest of the world that australia will be on top of the pops again. This wouldn't be the same Ross garnaut that wrote the climate change report while sitting on the board of directors of one of the world's filthiest mining operations would it?

Heres how to take 100,000 apprenticeship opportunities off the age of entitled youths....http://www.sharonbird.com.au/in_two_years_of_tony_australia_loses_100_00...

If you didn't know better you'd assume that the government would rather hire cheap foreign labour than ensure Australians have the skills to be self sufficient .....oh, wait a minute.

Ok , I've just had word that they despise Australia's workforce and don't give a fuck about any Australian that isn't a CEO or a majority shareholder of a top 500 company .

Makes a lot of sense now....

@Manbat. I get it. People who don’t agree with you are clearly brainwashed fools. You have a beef with the US. I get it. You excuse the external interference of others, while condemning the actions of the US. You contradict yourself by ascribing the malign influence US with the power to bring down an entire region singlehandedly, but in the same post deride the intelligence / security apparatus of this supposed omnipotent actor. “America is a war thirsty nation each withdrawal seems to be accompanied by another campaign. Since it began as a nation no other country in the world has been at war as long as america.” What is this incoherent shit? Its post-independence history 1776-1917 was one of isolationism.

I’m not an apologist for the US, but I’m a realist when it comes to recognizing that the US is not alone in seeking to influence events in the middle-east. Historically, it has always been the case, and I’d predict that this will continue regardless of the actions of the US. It’s a human problem, not restricted to the US. For the record, I didn’t agree with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and agree that we shouldn't have been involved. I agree that it was an invasion built on false intelligence, the implementation of an alternate government was fundamentally flawed and I think history has rightly judged ‘us’ for that. I think the Maliki regime that they left in place in 2009 was flawed. But I fundamentally disagree with your view that the Assad and Hussein led regimes were "successful" (your words) or that a complete US withdrawal will “allow these countries peace and restoration”. Why do I have this view? Because there are too many competing factions and interests in the region.

“enlighten us and tell us what the fuck is going on” You have an interesting take on the Russians. What underpins your view that their involvement is stabilizing and benign? Their past form in Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Chechnya and the ‘stans’ seem to undermine this perspective. Their ‘protect Assad’ position is based on their own economic interests – gas pipelines from Central Asia to the Med. The Iranians benign? Look up the role and function of the IRGC-QF for some enlightenment. Do you have an issue with the Iranian position on the existence of Israel? If you have an issue with external influence in the region, why do you excuse the actions of Russia, Turkey and Iran? Just because they’re closer? They’re ethnically and culturally different people.

You ask me what made the fall of the regimes in Iraq, Syria and Libya inevitable?
I’d suggest that the concentration of political power in the hands of a minority group (~18% of the population) may not actually be representative of an open, functioning democracy. This excerpt is from an Amnesty International report in 2011 (that puppet MSM megaphone for the US…) “The Syrian President’s speech today was widely expected to contain plans for the lifting of the country’s 50-year state of emergency.”
This must be the bastion of functioning democracy you mentioned. (spoiler alert: He didn’t lift the state of emergency in his speech) The election you mentioned? Won by Assad by a 97% majority… Wow. What a guy! Does a 50-year State of Emergency and an electoral margin of 97% indicate an open, free and fair state to you?

In Iraq the Sunni minority (~22-25%) exercised political control over the majority Shia and the Kurds. This was unsustainable. How was it done? Through political repression. Speak to a Kurd, or a Shia in Iraq, or a Kurd or a Sunni in Syria and see what they thought of the Hussain and Assad regimes. I’m assuming that you’ve been there and done this? Speak to the diaspora of Syrians here about their experiences. This is my point about you being condescending. You are removing the aspirations, intentions and actions of the people who have the greatest investment in the outcome of this ridiculous game. Are they fighting mindlessly because the US orchestrated it? They are as much an actor as the US, Iran, Turkey or Russia. To dismiss them as a figment of my imagination, implanted by propaganda, is insulting. To assume that a unilateral US withdrawal will somehow fix the mess is naïve.

etarip wrote:

@Manbat. I get it. People who don’t agree with you are clearly brainwashed fools. You have a beef with the US. I get it. You excuse the external interference of others, while condemning the actions of the US. You contradict yourself by ascribing the malign influence US with the power to bring down an entire region singlehandedly, but in the same post deride the intelligence / security apparatus of this supposed omnipotent actor. “America is a war thirsty nation each withdrawal seems to be accompanied by another campaign. Since it began as a nation no other country in the world has been at war as long as america.” What is this incoherent shit? Its post-independence history 1776-1917 was one of isolationism.

I’m not an apologist for the US, but I’m a realist when it comes to recognizing that the US is not alone in seeking to influence events in the middle-east. Historically, it has always been the case, and I’d predict that this will continue regardless of the actions of the US. It’s a human problem, not restricted to the US. For the record, I didn’t agree with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and agree that we shouldn't have been involved. I agree that it was an invasion built on false intelligence, the implementation of an alternate government was fundamentally flawed and I think history has rightly judged ‘us’ for that. I think the Maliki regime that they left in place in 2009 was flawed. But I fundamentally disagree with your view that the Assad and Hussein led regimes were "successful" (your words) or that a complete US withdrawal will “allow these countries peace and restoration”. Why do I have this view? Because there are too many competing factions and interests in the region.

“enlighten us and tell us what the fuck is going on” You have an interesting take on the Russians. What underpins your view that their involvement is stabilizing and benign? Their past form in Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Chechnya and the ‘stans’ seem to undermine this perspective. Their ‘protect Assad’ position is based on their own economic interests – gas pipelines from Central Asia to the Med. The Iranians benign? Look up the role and function of the IRGC-QF for some enlightenment. Do you have an issue with the Iranian position on the existence of Israel? If you have an issue with external influence in the region, why do you excuse the actions of Russia, Turkey and Iran? Just because they’re closer? They’re ethnically and culturally different people.

You ask me what made the fall of the regimes in Iraq, Syria and Libya inevitable?
I’d suggest that the concentration of political power in the hands of a minority group (~18% of the population) may not actually be representative of an open, functioning democracy. This excerpt is from an Amnesty International report in 2011 (that puppet MSM megaphone for the US…) “The Syrian President’s speech today was widely expected to contain plans for the lifting of the country’s 50-year state of emergency.”
This must be the bastion of functioning democracy you mentioned. (spoiler alert: He didn’t lift the state of emergency in his speech) The election you mentioned? Won by Assad by a 97% majority… Wow. What a guy! Does a 50-year State of Emergency and an electoral margin of 97% indicate an open, free and fair state to you?

In Iraq the Sunni minority (~22-25%) exercised political control over the majority Shia and the Kurds. This was unsustainable. How was it done? Through political repression. Speak to a Kurd, or a Shia in Iraq, or a Kurd or a Sunni in Syria and see what they thought of the Hussain and Assad regimes. I’m assuming that you’ve been there and done this? Speak to the diaspora of Syrians here about their experiences. This is my point about you being condescending. You are removing the aspirations, intentions and actions of the people who have the greatest investment in the outcome of this ridiculous game. Are they fighting mindlessly because the US orchestrated it? They are as much an actor as the US, Iran, Turkey or Russia. To dismiss them as a figment of my imagination, implanted by propaganda, is insulting. To assume that a unilateral US withdrawal will somehow fix the mess is naïve.

Nice an American apologist, explain to me again how successful Iraq has been since the American led invasion, how successfully lybia is after the American led invasion. Nah your right these countries are far better of now and in fact America wasn't even a major player.

I know it must be difficult to find a believable position for you to take following your posts but there is no need to project your personal inadequacies onto me, you really think I care if you disagree with me or anyone on an internet forum :)

'What incoherent shit is this?', sorry that you are having trouble understanding my posts. That particular point was to emphasise that America is a nation that is obsessed with war, constantly at war, one of the most warring nations in recent history but here is a simpler way for you to understand that point...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years...

Now just to reiterate, its OK for you not to agree with me etarip. I don't agree with your position that the US isn't a major player in the situation Syria :)

Get it off your chest sheepy!

The apprenticeships loss is such a jip for young people coming up. I can understand the carry on about the age of entitlement in some respects but I can't see the future in cutting off skills training and education be itfor young or old. Maybe education can't be as cheap as it was back in Abbott's day but reducing opportunity by reducing places is regressive.

It's a good read :)

Thanks for your magnanimous position manbat.
I don't see myself as an apologist. More a realist. And I don't think the US is solely to blame for Syria's current problems. I think they will continue regardless of what the U.S. does. Does my non-support of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq make me an apologist?

The reasons for going to war notwithstanding, for some,( the Kurds, the Shia In the south), life is better under the new order than it was prior to 2003.

Libya (that's how you spell it btw) was a civil war. There was no invasion. UNSCR 1973.

I've got a few inadequacies. Which one was I projecting onto you?

So, I get your anti US stance, but I'm still a little unsure of how you came to your position of support for Assad , Qaddafi or Hussein.

I support neither.
And I don't support military action against either.
Is that OK?

The Aussie jihadist story supports the cointell threads from the tin foil crew sheepy. Who would think a troll would be paid to turn up onto internet threads to spread disinformation ey etarip?

Etarip you gave a bit too much away in the post previous to your last.'I get it. People who don’t agree with you are clearly brainwashed fools. You have a beef with the US. I get it.' Blah blah, ad hominem attacks tend to come with a weak or flawed position and then to add,'I'm no American apologist' hehe nice touch :)

Um...yes...Iraq is better of since the invasion and Libya was a civil war...oh and I'm not an American apologist ;)

Sheepd…oils aint oils. You know that the US is now oil independent and is an exporter - hence one reason why the oil price is down significantly but with respect to this topic it is noted that Hungary does not want the Muslim Syrians, neither Macedonia, nor Denmark and I believe Austria. Now true colours may be shown a bit more since both Aus political parties have stated 'lets take women and children and those most likely to be persecuted from Syria'. Christian Syrians in Aus seem to agree. At least this recent agreed refugee intake will get the government to build a better migrant in take process. They are already talking about regional areas to benefit. Seems like a good idea as was done post 1945.

Both sides of your arguments have merit, its not just black and white. No easy solutions that I can see. I guess you got to pick up the spade and do some digging to get a true perspective. I guess we are lucky in that we are able get info here that is critical of the status quo ( although it is not as readily available as in some other countries )