Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[SpitfireMK461]

It has been Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other U.S. allies that have been arming the rebels and promoting destabilization. Sunni experiments have been entering the county. What has the U.S. done to stop this?

I'm not sure I follow you. The US and it's allies are supplying the rebels with arms because that's the side they support. It has nothing to do with destabilization, the country is already destabilized. And yes, people have been moving into Syria for their own gain, there is nothing that can be done about it (the country isn't stable) other than arm the factions you support, such as the Free Syrian Army (which the CIA has been and will continue to do).

All Russia wants is for the Islamic Pipeline to be constructed as planned. If the U.S. could guarantee that there would be Russian support, but the U.S. concern over Syria isn't peace, but the halt of their pipeline for ours.

Russia has far more interest in Syria than just the pipeline. Syria is also home to Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean, is probably Russia's closest (perhaps only) ally in the Middle East, and is a major weapons buyer.

It was a measure to have the airstrike and being able to shift the fallout to congress. Obama isn't the only war hawk in D.C. congress is maggoted with them.

I also don't see how Obama's words reflected the intent of avoiding air strikes.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/09/20407499-obama-on-the-fence-about-syria-strike-without-congress-approval?lite

If Obama doesn't sound serious about bombing Syria, then it isn't a credible threat. While sending the issue to Congress may be a way of shifting blame, it also shows Obama's lack of intent to strike Syria. It may still be a favorable option to him, but if it were his obviously preferred option, he would have just launched air strikes.

 

[Dr_Grip]

I'm not sure I follow you. The US and it's allies are supplying the rebels with arms because that's the side they support. It has nothing to do with destabilization, the country is already destabilized.

Without support from Turkey and other US allies, Assad would have crushed that puny rebellion within days, just like Ghadaffi would have his.
Both the destabilisation of Syria and the mess Lybia is now is the making of the West and their Allies. Lybia made even less sense since Ghadaffi was "our" guy, but the French and British had their own little crisis to avert...

 

[argatoga]

I wouldn't exactly call Ghadaffi "our guy", he supported many independence and democratic movements (in South Africa, Nicaragua, Ireland, Franco's Spain, etc) that the West didn't approve of.

Nelson Mandela wasn't too pleased when Ghadaffi, "his brother leader", was overthrown.

 

[Dr_Grip]

I wouldn't exactly call Ghadaffi "our guy", he supported many independence and democratic movements (in South Africa, Nicaragua, Ireland, Franco's Spain, etc) that the West didn't approve of.

He took care of a big part of the European refugee problem, supported anti-terror measures and provided bunga-bunga girls to Berlusconi, on the other hand.

 

[argatoga]

Yeah I wouldn't call him a saint by any means. But people aren't black and white.

 

[LeVeL]

As always there is a lot of conflicting information but apparently there are two active shooters at a Naval yard (gun-free zone) in DC (gun-free zone). Possibly up to ten people shot. Personnel told to shelter in place (become sitting ducks). Apparently we have learned nothing from Fort Hood. Well, here's hoping that however many shooters there are, they are stopped ASAP.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Without support from Turkey and other US allies, Assad would have crushed that puny rebellion within days, just like Ghadaffi would have his.
Both the destabilisation of Syria and the mess Lybia is now is the making of the West and their Allies. Lybia made even less sense since Ghadaffi was "our" guy, but the French and British had their own little crisis to avert...

The Libyan rebels fought Ghaddafi's forces to basically a stalemate before the no-fly zone was setup. In Syria, enough members of the military had defected to keep hold of neighborhoods within Homs, Damascus, and other cities. It was outside intervention that allowed the rebels to start pushing Assad's forces back and gain more territory. Then Lebanon and Hezbollah got involved and gave more strength to Assad, and Syria is now basically just a back and forth.

Either way, the country was destabilized before any outsider got involved. The kind of sort of happened when Assad started killing protesters and the protesters started fighting back.

 

[Dr_Grip]

The Libyan rebels fought Ghaddafi's forces to basically a stalemate before the no-fly zone was setup.

At which point, they have been supplied with weapons by western countries for weeks. But again, with Ghadaffi, the biggest surprise for me was that the EU did not intervene on his behalf, after all he'd done for them.

In Syria, enough members of the military had defected to keep hold of neighborhoods within Homs, Damascus, and other cities. It was outside intervention that allowed the rebels to start pushing Assad's forces back and gain more territory. Then Lebanon and Hezbollah got involved and gave more strength to Assad, and Syria is now basically just a back and forth.

Again, the CIA and the Turks has been supplying weapons to the Rebels for ages.

But most importantly, I'd like to point out that "the Rebels" do not exist. It's a broad spectrum of groups with competing or even contradictory aims, ranging from a liberal democracy to an islamic theocraty, from a rule of law to permanent warfare as a business model, motivated by a desire for power, by religious or tribal allegiance or simply by the will to make money. The best thing that could happen to the people of Syria is a quick Assad victory - once he is gone, a similar if not worse tyrant will quickly follow in a best-case scenario, but the more likely outcome would be Syria descending into anarchy and full-blown civil war, Rwanda-style.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

But most importantly, I'd like to point out that "the Rebels" do not exist. It's a broad spectrum of groups with competing or even contradictory aims, ranging from a liberal democracy to an islamic theocraty, from a rule of law to permanent warfare as a business model, motivated by a desire for power, by religious or tribal allegiance or simply by the will to make money. The best thing that could happen to the people of Syria is a quick Assad victory - once he is gone, a similar if not worse tyrant will quickly follow in a best-case scenario, but the more likely outcome would be Syria descending into anarchy and full-blown civil war, Rwanda-style.

The rebels don't exist? Really? What is the Free Syrian Army, then? The Syrian National Council? Or how about the thousands of ordinary civilians on the ground trying to protect themselves from a government that is indiscriminately killing them? The motivations aren't particularly important. All the opposition groups, with the exception of the al qaeda fronts, are fighting to the same end right now, to depose the Assad regime for massacring civilians.

The best thing that could happen is a quick Assad victory? First of all, it has been 2.5 years and no end is in sight. There is no quick. Second, over 100k Syrians have died in the conflict, nearly 7 million have been displaced, and you think Assad's regime is the best for the country? You think the regime that killed peaceful protesters, that is using chemical weapons on its own people unapologetically is the best for the country? I would think that the factions fighting for a democratic Syria winning would be the best case scenario. There is a chance for that to happen if we actually help them. The lack of outside intervention (what has happened up to now has been minimal) has allowed foreign fighters to enter the country and create extremist groups.

 

[Dr_Grip]

The rebels don't exist? Really? What is the Free Syrian Army, then? The Syrian National Council?

OK, let me emphasize this for you: THE rebels do not exist. What we talk about as "the rebels" are several factions with different, often competing or contradictory agendas. All that unites them is a desire to get rid of Assad - and this is why their alliance will most certainly end once Assad is disposed.

And this is why...

The best thing that could happen is a quick Assad victory?

I think this is true. All parties to the conflict have been indiscrimintly attacking fighters and civilians alike for the last twelve months. Most, if not all, rebel factions have a war crimes record just as bad as the Assad regime. That's why I think a win by the old dictator provieds the most likely scenario for a return of order and an end to the killing. The "factions fighting for a democratic Syria" will get involved in the unavoidable power struggle between different factions (sunni/shia, democratic/theocratic, pro-russian/pro-western, etc) and resulting bloodshed if Assad gets deposed. Which is why I think another dictator taking over is the second-best scenario. Anything to avoid a post-assad struggle for power between rebel factions.

And regarding your idea that an intervention would actually help the people, all I can say is that another side entering a war will lead to one thing with certainty, no matter what outcome: More bloodshed. Not a single intervention in the last 20 years worked, because once the dictator was disposed of, the infigting began in ever case. Not to mention the fact that the decision to give your life in the name of a higher ideal like "freedom" has to be made by every single individual. Every single person killed as collateral damage of an intervention by a third party is one killed unjustly. Personally, I think the dimension of crimes against humanity that warrants the guaranteed additional bloodshed of an intervention with uncertain results has to be much closer to the Holocaust than the war crimes of Assad (and most if not all rebel factions).
Read John Stuart Mills "A few words on non-intervention" if you have some time. It's from 1859, but it's main points still stand.

 

[GerFix]

Latest predictions have Labor winning 57 seats. That's a long way from the wipeout that was predicted in some quarters with people saying Labor would be reduced to less than 40 seats. If Labor was so unpopular, then the Coalition should have romped home with a massive majority in both houses. Also, the Labor government passed a record number of pieces of legislation - hardly symptomatic of a hostile senate.

What exactly is your numerical definition of an electoral mandate? Also, the hostile senate I'm talking about is the one we have today, where your mob and the communists combine for a majority. The new senators (from these minority parties) won't be admitted until next year.

You could also accuse Abbott, Turnbull, Hockey and Joyce of narcissism.

All politicians are narcissistic, as are many non politicians. The difference with Rudd is that it is more than just a personality trait. In his case it is pervasive enough to interfere with (rather than complement) his performance.

As for a rubbish government? Sorry, just wrong:

Yes they were

Pink bats? Yes, unscrupulous installers ripped off the system - they always do. They also didn't train their staff properly, resulting in 4 deaths. The employers should be held accountable, not the government. Regardless of environmental benefits, it makes economic sense for houses to be insulated - less electricity use places less demand on an already burdened electricity grid.

Good idea, implemented by idiots. You can forget the criminals in the ALP (Obeid, McDonald, Richardson). You can forget their jobs for the boys (Bracks, Carr ... didn't they both resign so they could spend more time with their families?). This past ALP government was expert at enabling criminals and shysters to rip off the tax payer (pink batts, lap tops for school kids, people traffickers).

Illegal immigrants? Don't get me started. It's not illegal to seek asylum. The problem lies in the source countries, not in Australian waters. ALP and Coalition both suck horribly in this area.

We had a perfectly working system until your bloody minded limp dicks changed it so that people traffickers could drown economic migrants (not asylum seekers) from Sri Lanka. Just because they arrive in a fishing boat doesn't make them refugees!

Gender wars? Gillard played the gender card, no doubt. So did Abbott. Neither side was innocent, and it was a disgusting era for Australian politics. May it never happen again.

Gillard sought to divide the nation along gender lines. She declared war on people based on where they lived. Hardly a government for all Australians.

Most of the rest is just Liberal party propaganda. If you can't see past the Coalition BS and see that some of the work that the ALP did was actually beneficial (like avoiding recession, NDIS, Gonski education reforms) then there's no hope.

Propaganda is the domain of extremists. The Liberal Party is hardly extremist. I'm yet to understand the importance of NDIS or Gonski. I'm pretty sure that people with disabilities in this country have not been without assistance.

The above makes me sound like an apologist for Labor; I'm not. I'm a swinging voter. I've voted Labor, Liberal, Democrats (remember them?) and, yes, Greens in federal elections. My vote goes to policies, not personalities. I look for evidence, not propaganda. I wish more people would do the same.

I'm a small "l" liberal. I don't give a shit about policies as the parties lie about them (carbon tax). I vote for the party that interferes least with my civil liberties, is not wasteful of my tax dollar and is not intent on ruining the country through populist, myopic policies. I also don't vote for a party run by criminals.

 

[Lurch0001]

What exactly is your numerical definition of an electoral mandate? Also, the hostile senate I'm talking about is the one we have today, where your mob and the communists combine for a majority. The new senators (from these minority parties) won't be admitted until next year.

This isn't a mandate. If you need to know what a mandate is, look up a dictionary.

Most people would take a hostile senate to be hostile to the government. Like Abbott will have to deal with when the new senate is introduced.

Labor aren't "my mob". Read my previous post.

All politicians are narcissistic, as are many non politicians. The difference with Rudd is that it is more than just a personality trait. In his case it is pervasive enough to interfere with (rather than complement) his performance.

I agree.

Yes they were

In your opinion, which is wrong.

Good idea, implemented by idiots. You can forget the criminals in the ALP (Obeid, McDonald, Richardson). You can forget their jobs for the boys (Bracks, Carr ... didn't they both resign so they could spend more time with their families?). This past ALP government was expert at enabling criminals and shysters to rip off the tax payer (pink batts, lap tops for school kids, people traffickers).

Confusing NSW Labor with Federal Labor. Not the same. And your bunch did plenty of jobs for the boys too.

We had a perfectly working system until your bloody minded limp dicks changed it so that people traffickers could drown economic migrants (not asylum seekers) from Sri Lanka. Just because they arrive in a fishing boat doesn't make them refugees!

In 2011, 89.6 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat were found to be refugees, compared to 43.7 per cent of those who arrived with valid visas. Having compassion doesn't make you a "limp dick", it makes you a human being. Maybe you should spend some time thinking about that before your next irrational tirade. Or maybe backup your opinions with some facts.

Gillard sought to divide the nation along gender lines. She declared war on people based on where they lived. Hardly a government for all Australians.

The gender debate never should have entered parliament, nor the media.

What party governs for all Australians? None of them - they all have a bent to appeal to one part of society or another.

I'm yet to understand the importance of NDIS or Gonski. I'm pretty sure that people with disabilities in this country have not been without assistance.

This is by far your most ignorant comment. Are you really going to stand by that?!?! Do you even know what you're talking about?

I don't give a shit about policies as the parties lie about them (carbon tax).

Remember core promise/non-core promise? "Never-ever GST"? New flash: all politicians lie.

I vote for the party that ...is not intent on ruining the country through populist, myopic policies.

So you didn't vote for the Liberals then...

 

[GerFix]

This isn't a mandate. If you need to know what a mandate is, look up a dictionary.

What dictionary? The Macquarie?

Confusing NSW Labor with Federal Labor. Not the same.

:lol: of course they are.

In 2011, 89.6 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat were found to be refugees, compared to 43.7 per cent of those who arrived with valid visas. Having compassion doesn't make you a "limp dick", it makes you a human being. Maybe you should spend some time thinking about that before your next irrational tirade. Or maybe backup your opinions with some facts.

Who exactly found them to be asylum seekers? Not, I hope, the same people who found people smuggler "Captain Emad" to be a legitimate asylum seeker. Oh, I'm sorry they were. He was granted asylum in 2011.

What party governs for all Australians? None of them - they all have a bent to appeal to one part of society or another.

True, but I have never heard a Liberal Prime Minister deride 10% of the country's inhabitants because they live in a particular region.

This is by far your most ignorant comment. Are you really going to stand by that?!?! Do you even know what you're talking about?

Wrong, this is my most informed comment. I have signed thousands of certificates for disabled parking permits, carers pensions and equipment purchases over the years. I know what is out there for disabled people. I also know I have colleagues who will give these resources away to phony cases. Expanding the bureaucracy associated with this sector will, I fear, just increase the cost, reduce the available services and increase the opportunity of unscrupulous providers and recipients to rort the system.

Remember core promise/non-core promise? "Never-ever GST"? New flash: all politicians lie.

The GST was introduced after an election in which it was central to the government's election platform. Everyone voting in that election knew about it.

So you didn't vote for the Liberals then...

Obviously ..... I did. I see you didn't address the issue of corruption and criminality in the Labor party.

 

[Lurch0001]

Who exactly found them to be asylum seekers? Not, I hope, the same people who found people smuggler "Captain Emad" to be a legitimate asylum seeker. Oh, I'm sorry they were. He was granted asylum in 2011.

So one person rorting the system immediately means they are all the same? Every last one is an "economic migrant" from Sri Lanka? Sorry to all those who fled Sudan, Afghanistan or Iran for fear of your life, Tony's going to turn your boat around and send you back to Indonesia. Even if you didn't come from Indonesia, even though the Indonesians have said that the actions suggested by Abbott are highly offensive and illegal. Even though sending you back to your home country may be a death sentence.

Let's also ignore the fact that running humanitarian refugee camps would be cheaper than spending up big on defense, border patrols and detention camps.

True, but I have never heard a Liberal Prime Minister deride 10% of the country's inhabitants because they live in a particular region.

Tony Abbott just derides 50% of the country's inhabitants because of their sex.

Wrong, this is my most informed comment. I have signed thousands of certificates for disabled parking permits, carers pensions and equipment purchases over the years. I know what is out there for disabled people. I also know I have colleagues who will give these resources away to phony cases. Expanding the bureaucracy associated with this sector will, I fear, just increase the cost, reduce the available services and increase the opportunity of unscrupulous providers and recipients to rort the system.

Then you should know that the NDIS is about far more than parking permits and pensions. And you should understand the importance of the NDIS, and understand that perking permits and meager pensions do not begin to cover the needs of someone with, for example, severe cerebral palsy.

If we didn't do something because of fear that someone will rort the system, is that an excuse to just totally dump the system? We shouldn't be opposing these systems, we should be supporting them, and ensuring that they are implemented with enough safeguards to minimise their misuse.

The GST was introduced after an election in which it was central to the government's election platform. Everyone voting in that election knew about it.

And the non-core promises of the Howard government? And Phony Tony?

Obviously ..... I did

Abbott's entire social campaign was based around populist policies. "Stop the boats"? Does it get any more short-sighted?

I see you didn't address the issue of corruption and criminality in the Labor party.

So? I already told you I'm not a Labor supporter. Corruption is a problem within all political parties, especially NSW Labor. Everyone in NSW has a right to be angry and ashamed that people like Obeid, Tripodi, Costa, MacDonald, etc, ever came to be in power. I hope they rot in gaol. But I'm yet to see any party take significant steps to stamp out avenues for corruption.

 

[GerFix]

So one person rorting the system immediately means they are all the same? Every last one is an "economic migrant" from Sri Lanka? Sorry to all those who fled Sudan, Afghanistan or Iran for fear of your life, Tony's going to turn your boat around and send you back to Indonesia. Even if you didn't come from Indonesia, even though the Indonesians have said that the actions suggested by Abbott are highly offensive and illegal. Even though sending you back to your home country may be a death sentence.

They made a glaring mistake with one. How many other mistakes did they make?

Tony Abbott just derides 50% of the country's inhabitants because of their sex.

pshaw

Then you should know that the NDIS is about far more than parking permits and pensions. And you should understand the importance of the NDIS, and understand that perking permits and meager pensions do not begin to cover the needs of someone with, for example, severe cerebral palsy.

If we didn't do something because of fear that someone will rort the system, is that an excuse to just totally dump the system? We shouldn't be opposing these systems, we should be supporting them, and ensuring that they are implemented with enough safeguards to minimise their misuse.

Everything this previous government implemented was rorted. Good ideas in theory, poorly executed. Throwing money at a problem is not the solution. The public hospitals in NSW are given more money now than they ever have been, yet the number of inpatient beds has fallen. One of my hospitals was 450 beds when I started, now it is 270 beds. Where has all the money gone? It has gone into an ever expanding bureaucracy which interferes with rather than enables effective patient care. It has gone into hair brained schemes (that are unused) to compensate for the loss of beds. Experienced nurses have been enticed away from the bed side to unproductive desk jobs (because sending email spam is a higher paid job in health now than tending a patient's wounds) .. sucking much needed experience from the core business of the institution. There are no guarantees that NDIS will be any different.

Abbott's entire social campaign was based around populist policies. "Stop the boats"? Does it get any more short-sighted?

Hitherto and pursuant upon the prevailing and pervasive Zeitgeist and ethnocentric paradigm .... urgh. At least Abbott didn't fill the media with wank words.

 

[Lurch0001]

They made a glaring mistake with one. How many other mistakes did they make?

Sorry asylum seekers, we made a mistake with one person, so you're all fucked. We're not taking in ANYONE just in case we make another mistake. In fact, we're so afraid we'll make another mistake that we might just go back to the White Australia policy.

Everything this previous government implemented was rorted. Good ideas in theory, poorly executed. Throwing money at a problem is not the solution. The public hospitals in NSW are given more money now than they ever have been, yet the number of inpatient beds has fallen. One of my hospitals was 450 beds when I started, now it is 270 beds. Where has all the money gone? It has gone into an ever expanding bureaucracy which interferes with rather than enables effective patient care. It has gone into hair brained schemes (that are unused) to compensate for the loss of beds. Experienced nurses have been enticed away from the bed side to unproductive desk jobs (because sending email spam is a higher paid job in health now than tending a patient's wounds) .. sucking much needed experience from the core business of the institution. There are no guarantees that NDIS will be any different.

Absolutely agree that all forms of public service need to have the bureaucracy cut. But cutting schemes to deliver benefits to those most in need isn't the way to achieve that. Nor is cutting public service jobs without first streamlining the processes. Cutting jobs doesn't remove the red tape; it just removes the people who have to follow all the processes.

I would rather have good ideas which deliver 90% of what they promise than bad ideas implemented perfectly. We'll get the latter with Abbott.

At least Abbott didn't fill the media with wank words.

"We have a contract with the Australian people". No you don't, Tony Abbott. A contract is entered into by both sides. What you have is promises, some of which you'll keep and some of which you won't. Like all other politicians.

 

[GerFix]

Sorry asylum seekers, we made a mistake with one person, so you're all fucked. We're not taking in ANYONE just in case we make another mistake. In fact, we're so afraid we'll make another mistake that we might just go back to the White Australia policy.

Yup (pretty much). The message that needs to be sent is, don't bother unless you are a bona fide asylum seeker .... and don't try to come here in an unseaworthy boat.

The tragic (and that is what it is, tragic) drowning of the 50+ people just 50 meters off the coast of Indonesia 2 days ago makes our governments (seemingly) tough stand all the more pertinent. The survivors say they were fleeing Lebanon because all it had was "cows and trees". They weren't fleeing religious or racial persecution. They weren't even fleeing because of the trouble in neighbouring Syria. They were economic migrants, not asylum seekers, and now they are dead because the previous government gave them (and their exploiters) the impression that Australia was a soft touch, a free lunch and an easy target. And who did they call on their satellite phone when their engines failed in Indonesian waters? The Indonesians? The lilly white, democratic and humanitarian Indonesians? Of course not! They called the Australians.

I totally concur with Alexander Downer's sentiment on this area. The Indonesians don't give a stuff about Australian sovereignty. Why should we give a stuff about theirs? They are worse than most of the nations that these boat people are coming from. The recent West Papua "refugees" (who are pissed off for not being able to get to the Australian welfare state) are testament to that.

Illegal incursions into our waters does not automatically make anyone an asylum seeker. We already have our quota of criminals, bullshit artists and taxi drivers who don't obey the rules of the road, we don't need any more.

 

[Lurch0001]

Yup (pretty much). The message that needs to be sent is, don't bother unless you are a bona fide asylum seeker .... and don't try to come here in an unseaworthy boat.

Were they also bringing in their shiny new Prados in to block up the M4? Don't forget that this all happened after Abbott's government. Not that you'll hear about this in future, with Morrison sweeping it all under the mat.

So, let me get this straight: you truly think that people would risk their lives, the lives of their children, to seek asylum in Australia via an incredibly dangerous route looking for more money? I'm seriously surprised that this attitude exists in modern Australia - then again, look at Pauline Hanson.

 

[argatoga]

If you want you can have our anti-immgration lot. The nice thing is they use the same arguments, just cross out Mexicans.

 

[nomix]

They actually fucking shut it down? Idiots. The only sane thing for moderate republicans to do now is to cross the floor and become conservative democrats. Then do another vote on the speakership, and Boehner is finally gone. Tea party will fizzle out once the 80 % of Americans who understand how damaging the shutdown is start to realize it's their fault and Boehner can stand for the nomination in 15 years time and lose to the governor of a significant state on the east coast.